Senator ABETZ (9:33 PM) —On 6 November I will be voting no to the proposed constitutional change. The reason is not that I am anti-republican. Indeed, four years ago I co-sponsored a motion at my party's state council to delete reference to the constitutional monarchy in my party's objectives. However, I do reject the Keating-Turnbull model before us. Having said that, I will be voting for the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 legislation that is before us because our Prime Minister and this government promised to the Australian people that the model that would emerge out of the Constitutional Convention would be put before the Australian people for them to determine its fate.

It should be recalled at this very early stage of consideration that the proposal that will be put before the Australian people failed to get a majority at that Constitutional Convention, albeit a substantial majority of those delegates were in favour of Australia becoming a republic, and I will return to that point later. Within this debate there is a substantial group of people who want to talk about a republic but not about the model, because they know that if people knew what the model is that they will be voting on they would overwhelmingly reject it.

I will facilitate that vote by the Australian people by supporting this legislation to allow the question to move forward. But, having done so, I will work untiringly to achieve a no vote on 6 November. Why do I do that? Yes, I do support the symbolism of a republic and I do support having all our constitutional and legal arrangements within our boundaries. Can I just say as an aside that it is quite ironic that the rabid republicans within this nation who crave this so-called independence are the same people who seek to foist international treaties on this country willy-nilly and thus undermine our national sovereignty. There seems to be a big double standard in their rhetoric and in their considerations.

The facts and the tests that I apply to this debate are fairly straightforward. I note the fact that the Australian Constitution has served the people well for nearly one whole century. I recognise that just because the system is good does not of itself militate against the understandable desire held by some, which I share as well, that Australia should become a republic. However, in acknowledging those facts, it sets a very high standard against which any proposed republican model must be judged. It was when making that comparison that I came down very firmly on the no side, because the proposal contained within this legislation is substantially flawed.

First of all, let me turn to the issue of the question or the long title of this legislation. With respect, a lot of nonsense has been spoken in this chamber about whether or not the Queen is the Queen of Australia. Allow me to quote:

If the constitution is not altered, Australia's head of state will, in due course, be Charles III by the grace of God King of Australia.

Who said that? No greater authority than the most rabid republican in this nation, the Hon. E.G. Whitlam AC, QC, in correspondence dated 28 July 1999. It is absolutely and fundamentally clear that, if we put in the question that the President we are voting for be Australian, to be fair and reasonable we would have to acknowledge the truth Gough Whitlam acknowledges, which is that the Queen is in fact the Queen of Australia.

Senator Forshaw —But she is not an Australian. There is a difference.

Senator ABETZ —Senator Forshaw is rejecting his icon, Gough Whitlam.

Senator Forshaw —The reality is that nobody out there listening believes the Queen is Australian, and you know that. Tell the truth.

Senator ABETZ —Mr Deputy Speaker, can you call Senator Forshaw to order. I want to get on with this and not listen to the hysteria of a rabid republican who knows that he is going to lose.

The question should put fairly and squarely before the Australian people what they are going to be voting for. What they will be voting for with this model is the replacement of the Queen and the Governor-General with a President. That is the way that the question ought to be worded. It could also be that the Queen of Australia and the Australian Governor-General be replaced by an Australian President. The descriptor words `Australia' or `Australian' are, quite frankly, superfluous because nobody in this debate would argue that in our constitutional arrangements Her Majesty is anything other than the Queen of Australia.

Are we truly to believe that the Governor-General is the New Zealand Governor-General or the Governor-General of some other country? If we were to vote for this proposal, are we to believe that the President we would be throwing up is the President of the United States, New Zealand or some other country? Of course not. Of course he would be the Australian President.

The committee report, in suggesting that we ought to describe the President as Australian, was an attempt to stack the question. I dissented from that recommendation because I think it is quite unconscionable to try to stack the question in favour of the republicans. In fact, a pathetic jingoistic sentiment was being relied on. I thought it was quite dishonest.

We also need to add to the question the type of republic that we are going to have. I support a republic in principle, but I do not support this republic. The Democrats and the Australian Labor Party, it seems, do not want the type of republic to be put before the Australian people. Why? I think it is fairly simple: they understand that if the Australian people were to understand the model, they would not vote for it. Indeed, people as diverse as the shadow Attorney-General, Rob McClelland, have acknowledged that the question would basically be sunk if the Australian people knew the President would be appointed by a two-thirds majority of the parliament. The shadow Attorney-General acknowledged that on the 7.30 Report last night in debate with me.

Another republican, Reverend Tim Costello, said about the question, `But it's still got the death sting in the tail.' What could be the death sting in the tail about telling the Australian people the type of republic? Why should that be the death sting to the question? Only because those supporting this model know that it is not favoured by the Australian people and that they will have a terrible job trying to sell it to the Australian people.

For every republic in the world today, there is a different model. On top of that, there are a whole lot of academic models. Indeed, the one we are being asked to consider is one of those academic models. It is therefore fair and reasonable to put before the Australian people exactly what type of president they are going to vote for. Will they be voting for the type of presidency that allows Boris Yeltsin to sack the parliament or the Prime Minister whenever he wants, or do we want a President such as the one in Ireland or the one in the United States? Surely it is fair and reasonable to tell the Australian people about the type of republic.

The fact that the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats do not want to tell the Australian people about the type of republic is indicative of the sort of contempt with which the Sydney chardonnay set—the Turnbulls and the Keatings of this world—treat the ordinary people. It is absolute contempt. They want to treat them like mush rooms, keeping them in the dark, feeding them a bit of stuff and then hoping that something grows out of it. There will be people like me who say to the Australian people, `I am a republican in principle, but I will not be supporting this model.'

The people of Australia would have become most confused by the fact that before the committee none other than Malcolm Turnbull requested that the term `President' be deleted from the question. He did not want the term `republic' in it either. He was running away from the fundamental issues. What was he the president of? The Australian Republican Movement. All of a sudden, he said that if you put the term `republic' in, the people might become confused. However, he had been the chairman of the Australian Republican Movement for quite some years. Indeed, they printed bumper stickers which said `A resident for president'. But now all of a sudden the term `President' could also adversely influence the people of Australia. It might somehow confuse them. What utter nonsense!

The research of the Australian Republican Movement had shown that certain words would turn off the electorate and that it would really turn off the electorate if the people understood they would be voting for a model which allowed the President to be chosen by a two-thirds majority of the parliament. Quite frankly, to try to keep that from the Australian people is dishonest, and that is why I support the compromise question that the Prime Minister has put forward to the people of Australia.

The model that is being proposed to us is typical of the Sydney chardonnay set: full of warm, fuzzy feeling but highly impractical. It will not work. The President needs to go through a number of steps. First of all, there is the nomination committee, all of whom are appointed. Next, there will be so-called public consultation. Next, there will be a secret short list given to the Prime Minister, and the most devastating thing of all is that the Prime Minister can completely and utterly ignore that short list and all that public consultation process. So why on earth was that put into the proposal? It was put in as a sop and a politi cal sweetener to the direct election republicans. It was designed to try to get a few of the waverers across by saying, `We will allow public consultation.' The public consultation process was merely a sop to the direct election republicans designed to swing a few more in favour of the proposal, but the reality is it was simply window-dressing. Anybody who has a good idea as to who ought to be the next President or Governor-General of this country can write to the Prime Minister and put the nomination forward. It has always been thus, and it will continue to be thus. We do not need this silly nominations committee which was simply window-dressing and which will have no impact at all.

The real proposal requires moving by the Prime Minister, seconding by the Leader of the Opposition and then an appointment by a two-thirds majority of the parliament. The President is clothed only with the authority of being President by virtue of the fact of that two-thirds vote of the parliament. Without it, the person would never become President. As a result, that two-thirds vote of the parliament is the most fundamental thing in the process and, therefore, it is essential that that be part of the question put before the Australian people.

Earlier this evening, Senator Lundy and others suggested there was some conspiracy in relation to the question. There has been one conspiracy only, and that has been the attempted conspiracy of silence by the rabid republicans who do not want the Australian people to know the type of republic for which they are being asked to vote. I understand the Leader of the Opposition has promised the Australian people, `Vote for this republic, and then there'll be another referendum, and we might be able to fix up the job completely.' That is tantamount to admitting that the proposal that is being submitted to the Australian people is flawed before it is even implemented. I say to the Australian people: why would you bother voting for it? Why would you bother voting on a Beazley promise? Mr Beazley promised us that the budget was in surplus. When we came into government, there was a $10.3 billion deficit. Through hard work, that type of deficit can be paid off but, if we had a democratic deficit in this country as a result of a botched attempt to become a republic, it would be virtually impossible to rework the system to regain that democratic element. It is impossible to make up any democratic deficit.

The Turnbull-Keating model will create a huge deficit in our democracy. What is this deficit? The President will be dismissible at will by the Prime Minister. It will be easier for the Prime Minister to sack the President than to sack his driver. That does not allow for a good constitutional system. We need a safety valve such as the monarch requires. The republican proposal suggested by Mr Richard McGarvie through a council of elders would also provide such a safety valve. In this two-thirds majority, the President would have a mandate of sorts and could claim to have an authority greater than the Prime Minister, because the President could say, `I commanded a two-thirds-plus vote of the parliament whereas you, Prime Minister, can command only'—let us say—`a 55 per cent or 60 per cent majority vote of the parliament.' As a result, friction will come into play, to the detriment of the democratic fabric of our society.

The public nomination process will be such as to deter people of high calibre from making themselves available for this high appointment. Those people who were considered and then overlooked would have their position substantially diminished if they had to return to positions of high authority, such as a position in a Supreme Court, the High Court or a position of that nature. Further, there is the potential for the High Court to become involved in the political decision making processes through the term `justiciability', which means allowing the High Court to determine whether certain political questions have been satisfied to allow the President or Prime Minister to act in a particular way.

As I am from a small state, the thing that concerns me most about this proposal is that the Commonwealth is driving this issue. You could have the ridiculous situation of the Commonwealth being a republic and every single state remaining a monarchy. Some speakers have told us about Australia becom ing a laughing-stock in the international community. Take the tip: there would be no greater laughing-stock in the international community than Australia if perchance we were to become a republic but none of the states did. Then we would be a laughing-stock. A Labor appointed governor of Victoria said about the model:

The angel Gabriel could not have made a workable system from the model that emerged from the Constitutional Convention.

Mr Richard McGarvie was absolutely right.

Upon being elected to this parliament, I dedicated myself to do the best for the people of Tasmania and for the people of Australia. I would fail in that solemn undertaking to these people if I were to seek to foist upon my fellow Australians a system which I know is fatally flawed from the beginning. I support the concept, principle and symbolism of a republic, but I will most certainly be voting no to this republic on 6 November.