Senator HOGG (11:03 PM) —Tonight in this debate I rise in support of the yes case. Much has been said during this debate—we have had the Constitutional Convention, the public debates and the media profiles; we have even had people in the other place who have leadership aspirations speculating about the claims on this particular issue. However, whilst there have been the yes people, the no people and the maybe people, the people who do not know which way they are going to vote still number many amongst us.

That is where we are at today. One thing that is patently obvious is that many people do not understand the existing process in relation to the appointment of the Governor-General and many people do not understand the processes of the appointment or the election of presidents in other places throughout the world. I heard Senator Abetz earlier in the debate talking about the presidencies in Russia, Ireland, the United States and a number of other places. The fact of life is that, if you were to ask the average Australian how the presidents in those places were chosen—elected, appointed or otherwise—very few, if any, would have any idea of the process of how that takes place.

But what has become clear in this debate so far is that, unfortunately, the Prime Minister has firmly entrenched himself in the no camp. Essentially, we have seen the Prime Minister manipulate the proposed referendum question in a way that minimises the chances of the passage of the yes case in the referendum. That is unfortunate, because I believe that the maturity of this nation now requires that we move from our current state into that of being a republic.

The Prime Minister, supported by the monarchists at the cabinet table, have undoubtedly decided to ignore the recommendation of the joint select committee that was established to examine this particular bill. I might add that this committee was established by the Prime Minister himself, and it was most unfortunate that he basically ignored the recommendations of that committee. It is no secret that the Prime Minister is comfortable back in the 1950s and supports the monarchy and, of course, that is his right to do so. But many of us have moved on from that period of time and been brought up in a different era where our views, our hopes and our aspirations are quite different.

But, as the legislation stands, the Prime Minister has provided the no case with the only possible argument that they have to derail the campaign, and that is to attack the appointment process. I am sure that the Prime Minister just hopes that the whole referendum will go away. The Liberal Party has divisions within its own ranks, and understandably so. I would think that the younger members would have a different attachment to the monarchy than those of the older generations.

Senator Ferguson —Where are you putting the dividing line—what age?

Senator HOGG —I am not going to try to sort you out, Senator Ferguson. You are ageless in some cases, so I will defer to you there.

Senator Conroy —Shameless.

Senator HOGG —It is not, Senator Conroy. The fact is that we are dealing with an issue—I will come to this later—that divides on age to some extent. But there is a division within the ranks of the government, and that is a healthy thing. Most of the people on our side of politics—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert) —All of them.

Senator HOGG —I will accept that interjection from the chair, particularly at this hour of the night. I ask the chair to defend me. The majority, if not all, of the people on our side of politics have accepted the republic. This has developed over a long time within our ranks. That does not mean that every Labor Party supporter out in the electorate is necessarily a republican, and it should not be taken that way.

Senator McGauran —But everyone in here is.

Senator HOGG —Yes.

Senator McGauran —You are sheep. You do not really believe that.

Senator HOGG —Senator McGauran might say that. Being a city farmer and in the National Party, he knows a fair deal about sheep. But we will not take too much from him.

What I am saying is that the Prime Minister undoubtedly hopes that this referendum will go away. The internal divisions it has caused within the Liberal Party are understandable. There seems to be unanimity on this side of the debate. As the debate has evolved, people masquerading as advocates for the republican side of the debate in the other place have been exposed. In particular, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has shown his true colours by trying to scuttle the yes debate. This is an unfortunate context in which this whole debate is taking place. The debate should be taken at a far more mature level than what we are currently seeing emerge from those people particularly trying to entrench the no case.

The minister in question chose to have no role in the Constitutional Convention. However, he now sees fit to act as a chief spoiler. At the same time as he is advocating the office of President, he suggests that it will become a political partisan one. There are many people who share the direct election approach. Undoubtedly, a lot of people accept that approach. I feel that there is a genuine concern amongst some people in the community about which model they would like.

The opponents of the republic are using every opportunity to ensure that the referendum fails. All sorts of scare tactics have already been employed. The scaremongers have claimed that our system of government is under threat, that democracy will no longer exist in Australia, that the flag will be automatically changed and that even uniforms will have to be changed. These sort of tactics—I can only imagine what will take place over the next 88 days before the 6 November referendum—will ultimately lead to further confusion.

It is a fact that, despite what the supporters of direct election espouse, the checks and balances of a healthy system of government—namely, this chamber—will not be altered. As I am sure those opposite and those opposed to the republic in particular would attest, it is the norm that governments do not control the Senate, that all these checks and balances will not be changed and that revolution will not occur in Australia if we have an Australian as our head of state. As I see it, the new millennium provides us with the opportunity to have our country come of age and to have its own Australian head of state.

I would like to briefly turn to the Constitution. I heard my colleague Senator Hutchins earlier in this debate this evening refer to the Constitution, particularly to point 2 of part 1, general, of chapter 1, the parliament, which says:

A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

What we see in the copy of the Constitution I have read from is that the Governor-General is appointed by the Queen to be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth et cetera.

The practicalities of the appointment of the Governor-General is that the Governor-General is appointed by the government of the day, particularly the Prime Minister. All that we have through the Queen is the Queen giving her seal of approval to the person chosen by the government of the day. If one were to argue strictly, the current Constitution has not been followed in terms of what is written in it. Practice has evolved which now sees the Constitution not being adhered to or followed in its strictest terms. Whilst one might argue superficially that the Queen appoints the Governor-General and acts at the pleasure of the Governor-General, one would have to at least concede in a realistic fashion that this is not the process that takes place.

I am interested in the fact that in my living memory there has been no time when the Queen has rejected a nominee of the government for the position of Governor-General. The Queen has also not intervened in the internal affairs of the parliament of Australia. Why should we have a Queen who is remote from Australia and who has no attachment to Australia as our head of state? In this day and age, I cannot understand why. For the generations of the era of 30, 40 or 50 years ago, one could understand the attachment we had to the British monarch—and that there would be some association, and an understandable association—through the colonisation of this nation and through two world wars. But those generations have now moved on. This is the point that I come to in particular: there are new generations coming through.

I happen to be the proud father of three young children of the new generation who have no attachment to any monarch, not out of any disrespect for the monarch but because it is something that is totally anathema to their understanding of what life is about. It is fit and proper for those people who have fought in the war, who have a British heritage or who have come here with an Anglo-Saxon background to have a rightful attachment to the Crown and, in particular, to the monarch. That is something that was instilled and inbred in the people of that generation. But there is a new generation that has moved on.

I have been to interschool debates where my children have participated. It did not matter what socioeconomic background the children they were debating came from, when it came to the issue of the republic and of retention of the Queen, it was never an issue with those young people. They have a different view and a different vision. I feel today their view and vision is being held back by the people who want to hold on to the past. Whilst that is all well and good, the future of our nation lies in the young people. People such as ourselves around here, with a few minor exceptions—and I am getting right into the age barrier now, Senator Ferguson—have fulfilled most of what we want to do in life.

Senator Ferguson —Oh, no!

Senator HOGG —Oh, yes you have.

Senator McGauran —You've reached a dead end!

Senator HOGG —No, I have a long way to go; I am only a young bloke. But many of our hopes and aspirations have been fulfilled whereas many of these young people are still in the formation of their hopes and aspirations and of what they are striving towards. We are in the later phase of our lives compared with these people. They have a different set of values and a different outlook—not that there is anything necessarily wrong with their outlook, nor is there anything overly right with ours. They have a real desire to see themselves in a completely different light from how my parents, my grandparents and others of that ilk would have seen themselves.

In the post-World War II period, we had a great influx of migrants from many cultural backgrounds. This is not to ignore or deny the indigenous people who were here tens of thousands of years before white settlement even took place. Any concept of a monarch in many of those cases is a complete anathema to their social values, their set of mores and their set of principles.

Senator McGauran —They shouldn't have come here!

Senator HOGG —That is not the issue.

Senator McGauran —They knew what they were coming to, let's be honest.

Senator HOGG —You are begging the issue. We invited these people in; they came in. Our nation has now gone through a natural transition. That transition will see and has seen that these people have no attachment to the concept of the Queen of Australia. Let me assure you that I respect those people who want to hold the view that they embrace the monarchy, but under no circumstances do I hold any attachment whatsoever to a person who is remote and detached from Australia being our head of state. As to the embarrassment that this causes when we get onto the public scene and we have toasts to the Queen of Australia, it is a complete embarrassment in its entirety.

I believe there is a lot of hoo-ha being put on about this particular change. We do need a republic. If the process that is envisaged in this proposal proves not to be perfect—and no process is ever perfect, no matter where you go—that still does not limit the opportunity in the future to change the process further if it is so required. From the debate as it is being waged currently, one would think that, if one puts in place a republic and the process of the appointment of the President of the republic, it is forever unalterable. One of the features of our Constitution is that it can be altered by a majority of citizens and a majority of the states of Australia voting in favour. It is not something that is set in place never to be altered, just as I do not think our forebears would have seen the Constitution as they put it ever remaining without change into the future. I commend, and I will be campaigning for, the yes vote for the republic because I believe our society has now matured to the stage where we should be a republic moving into the 21st century.