Senator TAMBLING (10:07 PM) —The Northern Territory representatives at the 1998 Constitutional Convention were Michael Kilgariff, David Curtis, Moira O'Brien, Nova Peris-Kneebone, Gatjil Djerrkura and the then Chief Minister, Shane Stone—all committed republicans who I know personally and who I believe accurately reflected the majority view on this issue in the Northern Territory. The Constitutional Convention and the campaign for a republic have been inclusive and will give all Australians the chance to voice their opinions this year, particularly at the ballot box. There will be an extensive government public education campaign in September with all Australians receiving information on the merits of both the yes and the no cases. Of course, the media focus is patently obvious.

I trust the campaign will reach into rural, remote and Aboriginal communities in a meaningful way without the patronising overtones too often afforded minority interests. The two committees that have been formed to facilitate and organise the yes and no cases contain people of merit and will be funded equally by the government to state their cases. The total funding by government is $15 million and the advertising campaign will be launched in early October. The increased level of debate has heartened me in the last few days regarding this issue. I believe that the better information and education circulating about the republic and the more discussion that takes place can only increase the chances of a yes vote on 6 November.

I believe the vast majority of people in the Northern Territory want a republic. The Northern Territory is a young, vibrant region that is rapidly changing and reflects the broader changes in Australia. I am personally positive about Australia's future as a republic. I believe that a republic is inevitable and that any delay is purely academic and frustrating important sociological change. The move to a republic has the potential to stimulate the development of a new Australian identity. Looking 10 years into the future, I would like to see Australia as a proudly cosmopolitan nation capitalising on its cultural diversity, something that the Northern Territory already does successfully and very well. No longer is Australia dependent on a British heritage.

I know the shared will between the community, government, business and academic institutions in the Northern Territory is for us to move forward into a diverse range of development, particularly engaging with Asia, and that this should be a model for Australia. Wherever we may have come from, citizenship binds us all in a commitment to Australia, a unique land with a distinctive way of life and many regional differences. I would call for an Australian head of state who reflects the nature of Australia as a modern, dynamic and mature nation. It should be open for any citizen of Australia to be able to be the head of state in their own country. I for one would like my children and grandchildren to grow in the knowledge of this opportunity.

It is also important that this change would give an opportunity for an Aboriginal or a Torres Strait Islander person to access the opportunity to become the head of state. This would be a great step forward for reconciliation and underpin a positive contribution to the Australian nation. The question that needs to be asked when people argue that the head of state is only a figurehead is this: if that is the case, then why not have an Australian figurehead rather than one whose sole right is being born to the job, someone who can only claim to be a British aboriginal?

Matters of process are again causing controversy, as is the case in so many constitutional debates. Admittedly, it frustrates me that Australians may miss out on this historic opportunity due to problems and arguments over the form of the question and who elects or appoints the President. With regard to the issue of the election or appointment of the President, there is obviously a popular view for a directly elected head of state. At the same time, the appointment process by the parliament, which itself has been constituted by popular election, is a sound basis for presidential selection. This process was in fact endorsed by last year's Constitutional Convention. I have no difficulty in accepting its proposition.

It is far more important to replace the House of Windsor with an Australian who has no rights to automatic inherited succession. Other than for media hype—for selling purposes of magazines—Australians do not relate to the puberty rites of Prince William or Prince Henry or the peccadilloes of the Prince of Wales or the Duke of York. It is also vital that people realise that the referendum is not on the Australian flag or the national anthem. A yes vote will not result in a change to the flag or the anthem. In fact, the flag is protected by an act of parliament and any changes would only follow proper consideration after wide obvious electoral support and plebiscites.

Under the proposed changes, each state will retain responsibility for changes to its own state constitution. This will enable them to claim or retain their own identity. Similarly, I trust that the Northern Territory will progress in due course to statehood in its own right and ultimately negate the discrimination in this referendum vote which in effect affords Territorians only a half value voting status.

Let us not miss this chance to make the final leap forward to independence and stand as a nation proudly unique in the region and the world. Australia has changed and evolved in a most radical and wonderful way since Federation. Our Constitution was designed to allow for this evolution, and there is nothing wrong with changing the Constitution if it is timely and necessary. It is not a rejection of our heritage or history but rather an embracing of the new with the old and accepting a positive reality. It is timely and it is necessary at the end of this century, at the end of this millennium, and I am an advocate for the adoption of a republic.