Senator COONAN (10:50 PM) —In many respects the debate over the constitutional referendum has been unedifying. This is hardly surprising given that we are being asked to vote on a particular model that is designed to deliver an Australian head of state rather than being asked in an indicative plebiscite whether we Australians want to establish a republic by replacing the Queen and the Governor-General with an Australian head of state. An affirmative vote would have allowed time for development and mature consideration of competing models. A no vote would have curtailed the debate. An inconclusive result would have nevertheless provided valuable information about Australia's attitude to the issue.

It is now idle to speculate about what might have been a more appropriate way to gauge the nation's will, just as it is unrewarding for direct election republicans to castigate the version now on offer. For these reasons, I do not propose to canvass these issues nor do I intend to discuss the compromise question. The facts are that the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 is closely based on the model settled at the Constitutional Convention involving the appointment of an Australian head of state by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament.

The Prime Minister had agreed to put the model decided on at the convention to a referendum and, substantially, this is now what we have before us. Although opinion polls have consistently shown that, if we are to change from a constitutional monarchy to a republic, Australians want to participate by directly electing their President, the only choice being offered is to replace the Queen and the Governor-General with a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the parliament.

If this is the only offer in prospect, the issue here is simple. It is whether Australians want to remain a constitutional monarchy or whether they will agree to the constitutional amendments that will establish Australia as a republic by replacing the Queen and the Governor-General with an appointed President. It would be disingenuous not to acknowledge that the constitutional scheme contained in the bill has some concerning features. Some of these have been identified in the advisory report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum.

I have misgivings about the power of the Prime Minister to summarily remove the President. It would seem that, despite the lessons to be learnt from the Whitlam dismissal in 1975, we are still to be wedded to an endgame of `who will shoot first'. This is not conducive to a relationship of trust between those who hold the highest appointments in the land, although it is a feature common to both systems. Similarly, I do not think the constitutional position of the Senate has been clearly thought through, nor the fact that it has a powerful popular legitimacy in our parliamentary system. The bill provides that ratification of dismissal is a role solely for the House of Representatives. This may be explicable, as the critical issue in a dismissal may well be whether the Prime Minister retains the confidence of the House of Representatives. However, the underlying crisis precipitating dismissal may well be a deadlock of supply in the Senate.

In my view, the question of whether the exclusion of the Senate from the process of dismissal would resolve the problem in a dismissal scenario or merely exacerbate it is highly problematic. There are at least respectable differences of expert opinion on whether the reserve powers formerly exercisable by the Governor-General lie in convention or are grounded in constitutional law, how these powers will be affected by the transition to a republic and whether they should be justiciable. Doubts have also been raised about the effect of the constitutional transition on the traditional prerogative powers currently vested in the Queen and exercised by the Governor-General. In the model before us, these powers would be exercisable by the President.

These powers are exercisable pursuant to section 61 of the Constitution for the execution and maintenance of the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth. However, as former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason succinctly points out:

Our public law which largely originated in the medieval conception of the Sovereign and his powers and immunities has evolved over the centuries so that it is now appropriate to a modern system of responsible and representative government. In the result, our public law is as appropriate to a `minimalist' Republic as it is to a constitutional monarchy.

There are also cogent arguments concerning whether section 128 of the Constitution can be used to amend state constitutions to compel acceptance of a republican form of government and the consequential arrangements that would be necessary. This detail is obviously beyond the scope of my speech in this second reading debate.

If there are potential flaws in the proposed constitutional amendments, should responsible Australians vote for them? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding yes. Obviously, I do not wish to be associated with any constitutional change that would lead to instability and uncertainty or be any less efficient than the existing constitutional monarchy. In that regard, many Australians are content to have a situation where the reserve powers are unspecified and the Prime Minister and Governor-General can dismiss each other depending on who takes the first initiative. The practical effects of the dismissal procedures under the bill are the same as under the present system. The Queen's role in dismissal is grounded in convention. She will act on advice and any attempt to elevate the monarchy into some kind of royal umpire is illusory.

I am convinced that the new constitutional arrangements are not so different in reach and effect from the present constitutional monarchy as to expose us to constitutional instability. In fact, I think that some of the arguments and alarmist scenarios that have been advanced against the bill are far-fetched. The prospect that a Prime Minister could get away with precipitous action in dismissing a President without incurring political sanctions is remote. Both systems offer stability, continuity and cohesion. Other nations have managed to achieve a constitutional balance between the prerogatives of a President and the Prime Minister. Why can't we? We have a robust democracy and the sky is not likely to fall in at the first constitutional hurdle we face in the transition to a republic. But the question remains: why change?

The next step in my journey towards an affirmative vote for this bill is more symbolic. We are about to enter a new century. Australia is no longer the country it was in 1901 and, while our parliamentary democracy has evolved since then, it has become evident that our mode of government and allegiance to the Queen no longer reflects Australia's independence, geographic location and ethnic diversity. The fledgling federation was a place of vast distances, where the overwhelming majority of the population was Anglo-Saxon and referred to Great Britain as the mother country. Australians today—even those with dual nationality—owe allegiance to Australia. As such, it is fitting that our nation's head of state be Australian. The republic issue is about far more than whether the Queen is our head of state. It is about the national identity that we want to present to the world. As former Governor-General Sir Zelman Cowen describes it:

It is a matter of importance for an independent Australia to state simply and unambiguously our national status.

The referendum debate is also a significant opportunity for Australia's youth to engage in the political process and to contribute to the future that they see Australia having into the next century. At a time when the youth of our country are facing many challenges, constitutional change symbolises new direction and hope for the future.

As a present custodian of our parliamentary traditions, I have an abiding belief that I hold them in trust for the youth of Australia and for future generations, who have a great deal to offer our country. Under the new constitutional model it will be one of them that has the potential to hold the highest position in the land. Under a constitutional monarchy not one of them will ever qualify to be our head of state. This alone then is a great aspiration to give our children, our children's children and our nation.

No legal interpretations or constitutional contortions can overcome the fundamental discrimination entrenched in our Constitution against an Australian becoming a head of state. No matter how distinguished his service, our Governor-General, Sir William Deane, is relegated to the status of a mere representative. The very concept is un-Australian.

The constitutional referendum also offers a unique opportunity for women to participate in one of the most significant questions regarding our nation's future in over 100 years. Unlike the Constitutional Convention of 1998, women were completely excluded from the conventions of the 1890s that determined the original drafting of our Constitution. It is also significant that the indigenous population of Australia, the original custodians, be included in decisions regarding the future of our country as, in my view, inclu siveness is a fundamental plank of reconciliation.

We are a gradualist society not given to radical change. We are rightly cautious about constitutional change, as the history of failed referenda will attest. The republic will not be made by the referendum alone; it will evolve and the people of Australia will evolve with it. One of the great triumphs of our parliamentary system is that it is not stagnant and rigid but fluid and evolving.

This referendum and the subsequent changes that will follow, should the yes vote succeed, will be a symbolic and significant step in our national evolution. On balance, I think it is better to have a bold and confident vision that looks to the future than one that looks only to the past. This is Australia's coming of age, as a number of speakers have said. None have put it any better than the patriot John Dunmore Lang who stated last century:

The colonists of Australia will doubtless at some future period establish a republican government for themselves and elect a president of the Australian states. It is a singular fact in the history of nations that Great Britain, with an essentially monarchical government, has for a long time past been laying the foundation of future republics in all parts of the globe and will doubtless be left at last, like the unfortunate hen that has hatched ducks' eggs, to behold her numerous brood successively taking to the water.

Will Australia be the last duckling to leave the nest or will we become the beautiful swan that we were destined to be? I commend the bill to the Senate.