Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I support the member for Fraser's motion with the single caveat that I am not sure that right now is the time for a referendum, but we should never rest as a nation until we are prepared to put this question to the people, and until it is successful we must continue to convince the Australian people. Succeeding, obviously, in that very adolescent notion of moving away from another nation and having our own head of state, in simple terms, to everyday Australians, is a bit like saying that you do not wear your old job ID to a new job interview. You move out as a child into your new home as an adult, and you do not take the whitegoods from your parents' place with you. Ultimately, your parents can give you a credit card, but promising that they will not look at the bank statements every month is just not that convincing. At one point in our history we need to stand on our own two feet and acknowledge that the system of monarchy has worked perfectly for a very long time but it is not perfect enough for Australia to retain.

This nation has an ethnic history which goes well beyond the United Kingdom and we also have an Indigenous heritage, both of which are not consistent with our continuing with our current model of government. But do not in this debate allow any criticism of the monarchy or of the English royal family, who do an extraordinary job—not just Queen Elizabeth herself but all of her family members, as has been pointed out by the member for Ryan. They do a task that I could not ever contemplate being able to achieve—a lifetime of service. So, let us not criticise the monarchy for being either patrilineal or white non-Catholic or anything like that. Now is not the time to criticise the monarchy; now is simply the time to ask what is the greatest form of government that this nation could conceive of—and it is to have an Australian head of state.

I concede that the buses will not stop running tomorrow, yes we will still win the World Cup, yes we will still lose at the Winter Olympics. Nothing will change in that respect. We can keep our flag, we do not need more bureaucracy. All of those monarchist criticisms are unfounded. We only need to make relatively small changes to our Constitution, with the permission of the Australian people. But it is a question that, as leaders in this great place, we must constantly be putting to those who voted us in. Before World War II, when people asked why on earth did we have another nation's generals leading our armed forces into battle, it suddenly became a very uncomfortable question to answer—just as in 1967 it was incredibly uncomfortable to answer why on earth Australians travelled on an English passport. Why as late as 1985 we were still potentially going back to the Privy Council for the final stamp or for appeal under our laws was also a very uncomfortable question to answer. I do not want, 10 years from now, people looking back to me and asking how on earth I could brook such a strange and curious conception for our head of state when the answer was right in front of me, before my eyes.

My model for a minimalist republic is quite simple—it is almost identical to the system we have today. We have to say to Australians that it is just not logically consistent to at one stage fear that we may become the next United States, if we become a republic, and then insist on every Australian voting in a president and therefore having an American system. No, our system works perfectly well. The appointment of a Governor-General who is highly respected and has the support of both sides of the political divide needs to be continued—we simply change the title of Governor-General. By the same token, we have a Prime Minister who is in an executive sense very powerful but not always quite so popular. This interesting tension of popularity and power is often an interesting observation in this nation because it works well—there is someone out there making the tough decisions, who is electorally accountable; there is another person doing the great job that could be done by an Australian head of state instead of the royal family. If you need to further spread that role out, why not incorporate the Australian of the Year for that 12 months to go around and do that very important symbolic and popular work, activating the conversations that this nation needs to have.

We are a nation that is effectively in the top 10 or 12 in the world, and people's eyes turn to us because of the way we run as an effective, efficient democracy. I concede that the monarchist model has played a small but reducing role in that process. Now is the time to again come back to this very important decision. I am not talking about a premature referendum; we must win the public debate long before it comes to a vote. As has been pointed out already by the member for Ryan, that remains a long way away, but there is no excuse for any one of us in this House not to be looking forward 50 years and asking what is the ideal model. When I do that it is impossible for me to come up with any model other than an Australian head of state and Australia becoming a republic.

See this speech in context