Senator STOTT DESPOJA (10:41 AM) —On behalf of the Democrats, I move the following amendment standing in my name to the title of the bill:

(1) Title, page 1 (lines 13 to 16), omit "with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament".

I move this amendment with a strong desire to ensure that the Australian electorate answers a question on 6 November which is clearly, simply and accurately set out on the issue of the forthcoming republic referendum. In doing so, and I have done this previously in the chamber, I acknowledge the work of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum in attempting to provide a wording which achieves these ends. While I regret that the entire Democrat party room did not find that acceptable, we believe we have come up with a better version.

My view, and that of the committee, has not been taken up by the government or the Prime Minister and, I understand, despite the fact that the Prime Minister rejected out of hand the committee's wording, there were differences of opinion within the government on the point. We believe the Prime Minister has come up with a compromise that is deeply unsatisfactory. The title proposed by the government is partisan and seeks to influence the vote on the move to a republic. It is no secret that the Prime Minister is not in favour of this change but rather than turning the debate over to those in the government who are in favour of seeking the change and perhaps taking a back seat on the issue—as he intimated he would do—he has not done so. He has entered this debate.

Why the Prime Minister has chosen to do so exposes his deep commitment to ensuring the republic referendum is defeated. He has taken every opportunity to influence this process. This is not a case of a half-hearted attempt at furthering constitutional reform but a concerted effort to undermine republicanism. From insisting on appointing half of the Constitutional Convention delegates rather than allowing them to be elected, and publicly misrepresenting the role of the public nomination process and the appointment of a President, the Prime Minister has engaged in a campaign of subterfuge to sink the republic. However, his insistence on the wording that he has proposed is the most outrageous aspect of this debate so far.

As Professor George Winterton has stated, past referendum questions have been framed in a favourable manner designed to secure a yes vote. As pointed out in yesterday's Australian, despite blatantly favourable wording in past ballots, only eight out of 42 constitutional referenda have been successful. So, when a question like a proposed law to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic elections throughout Australia does not secure a yes vote, can there be any doubt that our Prime Minister is doing all he can to ensure that this year's referendum on the republic is equally unsuccessful?

The wording the Prime Minister has proposed is not only inherently biased against the yes vote in its focus on one particular element of the appointment process—not coincidentally the most unpopular element—but also incorrect. It is inaccurate. The President is not appointed by parliament; the President is appointed according to the following processes: nomination by any member of the public to a nominations committee comprising one-half community members and one-half members of the federal parliament from all parties; formulation of a short list by that committee and its presentation to the Prime Minister; proposal of one candidate to a joint sitting of federal parliament—of course, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and probably, hopefully, after consultation with leaders of other parliamentary parties; and vote by the parliament on the proposed candidate. If a two-thirds majority approves that candidate, then of course the process is complete. Of course, final ratification comes in the form of the parliament. It has no role in the nomination or selection of the candidate. The Prime Minister's wording is therefore deliberately misleading, despite his claims that it is unbiased, despite his claims that he does not believe in any way that there should be any perception of this debate being rigged.

The Democrats preferred the wording recommended by the 18-member joint select committee in relation to `established by the Prime Minister'. Half of this committee— which was established by the Prime Minister—including its chairman, were government members appointed by the Prime Minister. The wording it devised was supported by government members and strongly advocated by them. Yet the government and the Prime Minister made clear that he would have ignored that recommendation. Instead, he has opted for his own. So in order to find some way through the possible stalemate that was developing, the Australian Democrats have agreed as a party room on a much more simple, accurate alternative. What we have proposed to break the stalemate is the wording:

A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic.

I defy anyone to find bias or inaccuracy in that question. It is the most simple and straightforward way of putting the question to the people on the issue of becoming a republic, and it is the question that Australians are expecting to be asked. It also ensures that the process of informing and convincing the electorate takes place outside the ballot box. The minister referred in the earlier debate on amendments to the title of the bill to methods of education and information. People should know well in advance which way they will vote, rather than us seeking to influence or have a last-minute education campaign in the ballot box on 6 November. It is not an education campaign that would be accurate if we were to use the compromise wording proposed by the Prime Minister.

The Democrats reject the efforts to manipulate the vote inherent in the government's wording. We are serious—very serious—about this amendment. The Australian Democrats expressed yesterday our grave concern and anger that the amendments in relation to putting the Senate in the dismissal process went down. I cannot tell you the anger among some of my colleagues in relation to that vote, but I do not wish to reflect on a decision of the Senate. So this for the Australian Democrats is the last and most important stage, a pivotal stage as to how the Democrats vote on this legislation. Our title is unbiased, straightforward and accurate. It is a reflection of the intent of the bill that is to be put to the referendum, and I urge the government and all senators to accept the simple and straightforward wording that we have provided.