Senator FERGUSON (11:41 PM) —I am going to try to condense my remarks as much as possible because we wish to conclude the debate tonight and there is not a lot of time left. That means I am going to have to try to cut short some of the things I wanted to say. In response to some of the things that Senator Quirke said, there has always been a republican movement in Australia. For the last 200 years there has been a republican movement in Australia, ever since European settlement. As Senator Quirke knows, there are a lot of Australians whose ancestors did not really want to come here in the first place.

It is mostly the descendants of those people who did not want to come in the first place—they detested Britain and detested the monarchy—who have always carried on the tradition of wanting to change our system and our Constitution and the Crown we have in place today. The republican movement is not new. It is just that in recent times there have been attempts to gain some momentum by putting before the Australian people a variety of proposals which they think are popular, but we will find out on 6 November whether or not this is really the case.

There are a lot of Australians who have arrived in recent times. A lot of those who have come in recent times, including possibly Senator Quirke's parents, came because of the perception they had of Australia, of its history, of its Constitution and of its heritage. Australia was a country that they wanted to come to. It was Australia that they respected. It was Australia that was solid, Australia that was stable and Australia that had a democracy. It was the place they wanted to come to. So we have this contrast of people who came 200 years ago who did not want to come and those who have come, particularly since the Second World War, and who wanted to come to Australia because of the country that Australia was.

I was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. If I remember rightly, I started my contribution at that Constitutional Convention by asking whether, if Australia was to become a republic tomorrow, I would feel any more Australian than I do today. The answer is simply no. I could not feel any more Australian than I do today. I could not feel any more independent than I do today. When I hear people overseas say, `If we remain a constitutional monarchy we will never be truly independent. It impedes our trade. It impedes our opportunity to trade with neighbouring nations,' I say that is the greatest load of codswallop I have ever heard. Australia today is recognised as an independent nation and one which trades under its own banner. People will always recognise that Australia is a totally independent country.

If Australia becomes a republic after 6 November next year, I will not feel any more Australian than I do today, nor I think will Senator Quirke, who spoke so eloquently just prior to me. We have heard speech after speech in this debate read by pro-republican supporters, I would say without enthusiasm. There were some speeches, like Senator Quirke's and Senator Hogg's, which were not read, and there were people who actually spoke from the heart. But an enormous number of speeches were read by pro-republican supporters without enthusiasm, as though they were reading a thesis for a university degree; it was something that they had spent much time researching but it was not from the heart. That is unlike Senator Lightfoot and Senator Abetz, who spoke from the heart, with enthusiasm and as though they really meant what they were saying. There was no tokenism, no symbolism from them. They spoke from the heart, as though they really believed what they were saying.

I am not sure whether it was Senator Hogg or one of the other previous speakers who said that our Governor-General, Sir William Deane, was relegated to the Queen's representative. I am sorry, it may not have been Senator Hogg, but I did hear one of the speakers say that the Governor-General had been relegated to the Queen's representative. It overlooks the fact that the Governor-General has powers that the Queen does not have. The Governor-General has far more powers than the Queen has. The Governor-General may be the Queen's representative, but to all intents and purposes and as far as I am concerned, Sir William Deane is our head of state.

I do not know that there is any reference in our Constitution to a head of state. I have read it a couple of times and I cannot recall any mention of the words `head of state'. As far as I am concerned, the Governor-General is our head of state. It was good enough for him to go and represent Australians in Switzerland at the time of a recent very sad event, where everybody thought of him as the head of state of Australia. In many other areas, Sir William Deane, who is so much admired by many people opposite and others, is truly the key figure and the representative of Australia.

I will be voting no at the referendum. I will also be voting no at the third reading stage of this bill. My colleague Senator Schacht probably knew that before I said so. It is not that I do not want this referendum to go ahead, because I do. But in fact the quirk of our system says that, unless there is opposition to the bill, there cannot be a case put so that people can make an informed judgment by having information provided to them on both the yes and the no case. So I will be voting no at the third reading stage of this bill. I want Australians to have a say in this referendum, because I think this is something that needs to be decided. But I would like it placed on record that I will be voting no for those reasons. I will be one of those who will be responsible for making sure that Australians have the opportunity to make an informed decision when it comes to the referendum because there has to be a case prepared for both opinions when the referendum is put to the Australian people.

I heard one of my own colleagues just a while ago talking about ducklings leaving the nest and becoming beautiful swans. When I hear that sort of rhetoric describing the republic, I am taken aback, because I do not think that is speaking from the heart. I much preferred to hear what Senator Lightfoot said.

I distinctly remember that during a visit from a French delegation a couple of years ago one of the French members of parliament got up and said, `And when are you Australians going to leave the nest? When are you going to actually become independent and stand on your own two feet?' One of my colleagues got up and asked this member of the French parliament, `Sir, which model of the French republic do you think we should model ours on—the first, second, third, fourth or fifth republic?' That member of parliament from France was somewhat taken aback when he was asked that question.

I have been concerned when people have talked about the recommendations of the select committee and have referred to it as being a bipartisan committee. I always understood the word `bipartisan' to mean a group of people of opposing views coming to some consensus at the end of a discussion. In the case of the select committee I think the word `bipartisan' has been used very loosely. What it meant in this case was that the pro-republicans had one point of view, and that those on that committee from the Liberal Party and the National Party who had a differing point of view dissented from that report. For the media and others to talk about a bipartisan select committee is misrepresenting the term `bipartisan' in relation to this particular subject. The committee members were people of opposing views and at the end of their deliberations they still had opposing views. So I do not think it is right to even suggest that that select committee was a bipartisan committee. It was a party composed of people who were pro-republican and pro constitutional monarchy; they did not have a similar position, they had a differing position at the end of their inquiry.

Senator Hogg talked about the future for young Australians. He said that when the Queen is mentioned all young Australians believe that that plays no part in their future. He wanted to have a future for young Australians, which in some sense meant that, if we get rid of the Queen, they have some brighter future. My daughters have now grown up, but I have a young granddaughter. I want young Australians to have the same opportunities that I had. I grew up in an Australia where opportunities abounded.

There are far more important things than changing the symbols to give our young Australians opportunities, by way of providing opportunities for jobs, for advancement, for education. There are a whole range of things that we can do for young Australians other than change the symbols of this nation. Changing the symbols will provide them with nothing. Some of them may get a feel-good feeling about it, but there are far more important things than changing the symbols that will make it possible for young Australians to be confident about the future and have the sort of future that I had when I was a young Australian, when it was possible for young Australians to achieve so much. It is still possible for young Australians to do that. There is no need to change the symbols for it to happen.

I am a supporter of our current Constitution. I am a supporter of the institution of the Crown, not of the wearer of the crown. I am a supporter of the institution of the Crown, because I think that is what is important in our Australian Constitution. As I said earlier, I regard the Governor-General as the head of state, and the Queen as the sovereign of Australia. She is the Queen of Australia. Gough Whitlam made sure of that: he actually made her an honorary Australian. So to talk about having a `foreign' Queen—to use the terms of those opposite—as our head of state is something that Gough Whitlam fixed up back in the early 1970s: she is the Queen of Australia. She is also the Queen of England but she is the Queen of Australia.

As I said, it is not the issue of the Queen or any other wearer of the crown that is important to me but the institution of the Crown. And to those opposite who talk about wanting to rid themselves of the Crown and the British monarch because we no longer trade with Great Britain and there is no closeness I say that, if that is the case, why on earth do they want to stay in the British Commonwealth? Part of the information that is being put to people is that, yes, we are going to have a minimal change: we want to get rid of the Queen and have an Australian President, but we want to stay within the British Commonwealth. Well, if the British Commonwealth is so important, why? If there is no trade, if we have nothing in common, why on earth don't they want to break those ties?

I do not want to break them, because I think that there is an important historical context. It is important for Australia as a nation. It is important for those people who have come to Australia to have the opportunity, as Senator Hogg said earlier, to bring their children up in this wonderful country of ours which gave me so many opportunities, has given my daughters so many opportunities and will, I hope, give my grandchildren many opportunities.

I must conclude, because the time at which the Senate will to adjourn is getting very close and I know that the minister wants to conclude the debate. I wanted to explain to the Senate the reasons that I will be opposing this bill at the third reading, and I hope that on 6 November this proposal that is being put forward by way of referendum will be resoundingly defeated.