Senator BOLKUS (10:28 AM) —Madam Chairman, we have probably had a fairly exhaustive discussion on this within both the Senate and the House of Representatives and also in the public arena. I do not want to generate any more excitement this morning. I would like to refer to a couple of points that have been made in the debate over recent hours and to defend the opposition's position on the motion we are putting before the chamber.

The first thing we have to understand is that this is not something that the opposition itself worked out. The long title we are suggesting actually comes from the joint parliamentary committee. It was almost a unanimous decision of that committee to come up with the words that the opposition is now pursuing in the parliament to be the long title of the republic bill.

That committee said in their conclusions:

The committee concludes the most appropriate long title for the republic will be one that presents clearly and simply the essential purpose and outcome of the proposed legislation.

Therefore the committee recommended the words that we are putting up today. So this is not just coming from the opposition; this is something that has been worked upon by members of parliament of all persuasions over recent months.

Senator Murray talks about the absence of the word `appointed' making it unbalanced. Senator Murray, a lot of other words are also absent. That is why the committee felt that a wording that presents clearly and simply the purpose and the outcome is the best way to go. I said to you in the debate a few days ago that I thought there was a streak of Machiavelli in all this—a streak of Peter Reith in the way that you are putting up this amendment. I notice you did not deny it.

Senator Murray —I wish I had that amount of talent, Senator Bolkus.

Senator BOLKUS —I am glad you do not have that amount of deviousness as yet. It must be the narcotic effect of the chesterfields in the Prime Minister's office that is having a bit of an impact on you in moving this amendment.

The other point that needs to be made is that the question is important, obviously. What we are really on about is getting a question that is fair, and that is what the committee thought. One only has to read John Stirton in the Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday to see the analysis of the Herald AC Nielsen poll published this week; a poll which on the one hand put the Howard question and got a 31 per cent positive report. Only 31 per cent said they would support such a republic as described in the Prime Minister's previous preferred referendum question, whereas the question proposed by the committee engendered a 57 per cent response for the republic. Questions do make a difference. In a sense, all sides of parliament know that that is the case. There is a degree of shadow-boxing. We would maintain, though, that we have the legitimacy and the cloak of the joint parliamentary committee in pursuing this particular amendment, whereas on the other hand some of the others—I do not refer to people in this debate, but particularly the Prime Minister—have an interest in ensuring that the proposal does not get up.

I do not know that I need to speak much longer, other than to say we could go on for quite a length of time on this. But we do have the preamble legislation to get into as well. It might be an opportune time to go to the vote.