Senator FERRIS (7:38 PM) —Two weeks ago a group of journalists were sharing a bowl of pasta and a plate of bruschetta in the cafe belt of Sydney, musing about the upcoming referendum with one or two of the intellectual giants of the republican debate—the yes case. The chat was about a dilemma facing the republicans: `Why won't the women support us? Why can't the girls understand our simple premise and just say yes?' No-one really had the answer and, as the cab sav warmed up the debate, and more than a few cheeks, out came this remarkable gem from a fearless republican general: `The stupid housewives of Australia will lose us this debate. All the intelligent women know to vote yes. Why don't they?'

Perhaps I can be of some assistance. The latest Age poll, published last week—despite that newspaper's clear advocacy for a yes vote—shows that female readers still remain to be convinced. While 48 per cent of men declare themselves to be republicans, only 39 per cent of women agree. So the women of Australia in their thousands are questioning this republic, and for very good reasons.

Calls to my office indicate that women—and more than a few men—want to know why this referendum is a priority now, why it takes precedence over all the other important community issues that we are confronting: jobs for young people, the drugs problem, crime, health and so on. They are right of course—there are many more important matters on the government's agenda than this costly referendum. They have also become aware of the 69 changes which will be needed to the Constitution when there have been only a baker's dozen in the last 100 years, and they want to know what that will mean. They are correct again. Even the well-known republican Thomas Keneally has described it as `the biggest structural change to our Constitution'—or, to use Lachlan Murdoch's words, voting yes would bring about `our revolution'.

Women are worried about the costs of a change. As managers of the household budget, they are financially well informed, but there is no clear answer on this question. Nobody can say with any certainty what that cost will be on top of the estimated $120 million that has already been spent so far. `What a community priority', they say, and I agree with them. Then there is the important question they raise of the role of women in the political appointment process. Once again, they are right. Despite there being the largest number of elected women in the federal parliament ever in our history, the fact is that 75 per cent of members and senators are men. And women, particularly older working women, understand the magnitude of the built-in bias against the appointment of a woman as our President. On this issue, I agree with the eminent lawyer and direct-elect republican Jocelynne Scutt, who said earlier this week:

If you have a presidential system that is controlled by the Prime Minister with the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition and then the endorsement of two thirds of the parliament, why on earth would we think that women have an equal chance of getting up under that system?

Why indeed? Dr Scutt continued:

In the end, I want a transparent system . . . the reality for me is that a transparent system does assist women . . . I want all women and men in Australia to know who the possibilities are for president, and to have a transparent system . . .

More than Dr Scutt are wise to the obstacles placed before women when it comes to being President, whether she was chosen or elected by all Australians. For while it is true that more women are being elected to the federal parliament, the fact is that 22 of them are in the Senate. This is where the shameful bias against not only women but also the rights of every state in this nation are revealed for all to see because, while the senators—male and female—representing their states will have a chance to vote in the selection process now being proposed, that is where the opportunities for our state representatives end.

If in the regrettable circumstance that this flawed model was accepted by a majority of states and, even more unfortunately, if the President was to be dismissed by the Prime Minister, where do you think the senators would be when a motion supporting his decision went before the House of Representatives? Absolutely nowhere! They will not be included in the debate or in the vote. There will be no joint sitting for this motion and no representatives of the states will be allowed into the House of Representatives to debate this Prime Minister's unilateral decision. Nowhere! There will be no senators—male or female—and no representatives of the states anywhere to be seen on the green carpet on that day. So much for states rights. As Dr Scutt may have noticed—because, as I have just observed, only members of the House of Representatives will vote on the dismissal motion—only 33 women will be involved in the vote or have an opportunity to take part in the debate.

Given that women comprise 52 per cent of the population or 9,502,848 people, affirmative action as well as democracy and state rights seem to be strangely absent on this occasion. The women of Australia are awake to it and they are questioning it in droves. They know a shonky model when they see one, and they know they are looking at one with this republican model that is on offer. Informal research indicates that the largest group of women who believe that the republic may be too much change are aged between 25 and 45, have children and usually manage the finances in their homes. They are the women who are already worried about this country's priorities for their children and grandchildren: what jobs they are going to have, what their health choices will be and, perhaps most important of all, the pervasive drugs scene in this country. These are the intelligent women of Australia, and they are well aware of the murky future of the model on offer. To quote that very brave republican general at the Sydney cafe:

All the intelligent people know to vote yes, why don't the women?

I have news for that fellow: the intelligent men and women of Australia have thought very carefully about the revolution that this republican model would deliver, and they are correctly voting no.