Senator McGAURAN (10:29 PM) —I just want to pick up, in the brief time available, some comments made tonight by Senator Schacht about the result of the referendum held some weeks ago in this country. Talk about sore losers, with the sour speech coming from Senator Schacht. We are used to hearing some sour speeches coming from Senator Schacht, but tonight he has certainly taken the cake. He simply was not willing to accept the result, as I believe the constitutional monarchists would have accepted the result. Here we have the prime example of someone who represents so many who, from the time the result came in on Saturday night, have not been willing to accept the result of the Australian people and this country's democratic processes. You just do not get much worse than that.

He claimed that the constitutional monarchists have brought disgrace upon the parliament. What of the other side who are not willing to accept the result of a referendum on our constitution? You cannot get any higher democracy than that and we as parliamentarians have to accept that. But he and, as he says, the many he represents do not. Talk about learning nothing and being bound to make the same mistakes again should there to be a constitutional referendum down the track. And talk about the disgrace—that is the word Senator Schacht threw around this parliament so freely this evening towards the Prime Minister and any other constitutional monarchist like my good friend Senator Minchin and others—in not accepting the most basic, important and serious democratic process that we have in this country.

I admit that the slogan `Don't trust politicians' is not something that I would have thrown up necessarily, but to think that that was the turning point is, again, to not learn the lessons of this referendum. They have learnt nothing. Look at the results that came in on Saturday night, Senator Schacht, and you will see that although that petty slogan may have rung a bell with some of the voters, it was not the reason the referendum was lost. The results were telling: not one single state supported the referendum. And this is the most telling point: not one single rural, country or regional seat supported the referendum throughout the whole of Australia. Not one Labor Party seat voted yes on the referendum—not one traditional blue-collar Labor Party seat—bar Victoria where some did. However, it should be noted for the record that Victoria was a no vote state. Many on the night and days after tried to claim that Victoria was the only yes vote state; but, in the end, convincingly enough, it was a no vote state.

Look at the results. One of the primary reasons from a federal electorate seats analyses of the vote was that people saw this as a chardonnay republic. That is one of the key reasons why it lost. Look at the Labor vote: Labor supporters would not vote yes on this republic. The country vote would not vote yes on this republic, but the North Shore seats in Sydney voted yes. More than anything else—it was not a single factor—the Australian people saw it as a chardonnay republic. It got off to a bad start years ago when Mr Keating put it up, and it went downhill from there when Mr Turnbull took over the campaigning. The whole approach of the campaign from Senator Schacht and the republican side is where it all faltered. It did not falter from that single `Don't trust the politicians' slogan. There were other reasons, and the chardonnay set republic was one of the main reasons.

There was another slogan which was very effective in the minds of the public: `If it isn't broken, don't fix it.' To me that was the winning slogan that had the most telling effect amongst the voters in what was for most a very difficult decision. However, once the decision was made 55 per cent of Australians voted no to a republic. Many were doubtful right up to the election day. We have a political culture in this country envied by others in the world, and the slogan `If it isn't broke, don't fix it' played most in the minds of the voters on election day.

There were deceptions on the other side, Senator Schacht. The republican side ran big deceptions, none more than the Australian flag, but it did not fool the Australian people. They knew that once a republic was up, the Australian flag was gone—pretty simple—and they wanted to keep their existing flag. That was another reason they voted the referendum down. We saw frequently on television an intelligent analysis of the whole argument. All Australian voters had access to the arguments and to the debates, and I do not doubt that there was an intelligent analysis that they simply did not want this republic at all—a republic that was going to bring in 69 changes to the constitution. They thought that was all too much at this time.

Senator Schacht, your simplistic and embittered analysis—

The PRESIDENT —Senator, your remarks should not be directed directly to Senator Schacht. They should be directed to the chair.

Senator McGAURAN —Let me say, through you, Madam President, to those on the other side: the coalition had a free vote on this matter. This was another very important play in the whole analysis on the referendum night. It was quite evident that some on this side supported the constitutional monarchy and others did not. There was a bit of rough and tumble between the coalition and between members of the Liberal Party. It was a vigorous, honest, open debate; it was worthwhile having and we should do it again.

But the other side did not have a free vote, and that played out in the electorate too. They did not trust the other side because they knew that they were party to the biggest deception of all in that many in their ranks were actually constitutional monarchists who wanted to keep the existing system because it maintained a very safe and envied political culture. They did not trust the claim that you were being honest with the Australian people. So when you talk about `Don't trust politicians', I would say, `Don't trust your side because you never gave a free vote on this; you were never up front and honest about the intentions of individual politicians.'

This was not a matter for party politics—you should have allowed a free vote. So do not talk about a dishonest approach and, as Senator Schacht attempted to do, single out one person—the Prime Minister—as if he could have turned the whole tide on this vote and turned the Australian public against a republic. The point is that he was honest from the start. He was consistent from the start. As Prime Minister he gave the Australian people a chance in a referendum to make their own decision. He never varied from his position. I do not know what you are talking about, Senator Schacht, other than that you are being sour and do not accept the result.

In regard to the Prime Minister stepping down from opening the Olympics, he did that graciously because he knew only too well that that would have become a political football. He did not stand on his pride in this matter so the games would be kept free of politics—at least from a federal point of view—and so all could enjoy it as a non-political event. It is truly a great Australian event to which we look forward. In conclusion, much of the deception, much of the stuff-up, was in the republican campaign camp, Senator Schacht.

Senate adjourned at 10.38 p.m.