Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

In providing the closing address at this second reading stage of the Succession to the Crown Bill 2015 I should note formally that the bill will provide the Parliament of Australia's assent to modernise the law relating to royal succession. The reforms were enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom on 22 April 2013 and will come into force on the commencement of the United Kingdom legislation as soon as all 16 realms, as they are correctly known, including Australia, implement the reforms in their jurisdictions. I should formally thank the state premiers and territory chief ministers for their support for the Succession to the Crown Bill 2015, which implements the reforms in Australia. All state parliaments have enacted legislation requesting under section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution that the Commonwealth enact legislation for the whole of Australia. The territories did not need to enact such legislation. However, the Northern Territory parliament enacted symbolic legislation and the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory wrote to support the reform.

It is at this point that it is traditional to thank the speakers who contributed during the second reading debate, which I shall do. But I might make some comment about the nature of some of those speeches. The member for Kingsford Smith raised a question—which I do not think was rhetorical—which was: why is this House spending so much time on this bill? And the trivial answer to that question is: because members opposite outnumbered speakers of the government, two or three to one, to talk about the republic. I guess the more complicated answer to that question is that the bill is, notwithstanding some of the contributions from members opposite, very, very significant.

If you consider that the bill's content and the reform that it achieves is insignificant, then you are simply mistaken. If you take a view that the bill is anachronistic because it engages in significant reforms of a British institution—that is, the monarchy—which is constitutionally inherited in Australia, then I think you make an even graver error of judgement, because if you do not wish in the future to see the continuation of the Australian inheritance of the British constitutional monarchy and thereby consider reforms to it to be anachronistic, then you misunderstand one of the fundamental and further Australian inheritances from the British constitutional system. And that is that Australians—like our British counterparts who toiled for hundreds of years to bring about democratic government in Great Britain—have inherited a great respect and an enormous preference, when it comes to matters of constitutional governance, for cautious, pragmatic, piecemeal and progressional reform.

To those members opposite who would prefer, at some point in time, a republic but who, in that preference, consider these reforms to the existing system anachronistic, you are—with respect—completely missing the point. Indeed, the level of surety by members opposite in expressing what they consider to be the perceptions of the Australian public—that this or that is cringe-worthy and that people much prefer this than that—near verges on arrogance as to what people's views about our constitutional arrangements and inheritances are.

I will say that all but one of the contributions were exceedingly civil. It is probably instructive at this point to speak about the Leader of the Opposition's recent contributions on the issue of an Australian republic. I certainly class his contribution this evening as one of those that was civil. He said the debate about something such as a republic should proceed 'somewhere in the middle of the road, not punctured by extremes, or by incivility or rudeness.' Obviously that was a memo that the member for Isaacs did not receive at any point about the republic debate. But all the contributions were civil, other than that of the member for Isaacs, and all of them pointed to a view that this legislation is somehow anachronistic because it does not do what some people opposite think the Australian people want—and I would say that is a very big 'if'—or what they themselves would prefer.

Let me address the issue of why this bill is important. Both sides of politics support this bill. Procedurally, the bill had its genesis in the former Labor government. The procedure, and the use of section 51(xxxviii), is somewhat tortuous, although it is worth noting here—again, I think this speaks to the importance of the bill—that, other than the Australia Act 1986 and perhaps the Coastal Water (State Powers) Act 1980, which was itself enacted as part of the offshore constitutional settlement, I think, based on my limited research, that this bill is only the third time in Australia's history that the section 51(xxxviii) power has been used. This is a power in our Constitution which, as I understand it, is unique. It does not exist in the constitutions of Canada or the United States. The way in which this has happened is a great example of the merits of cooperative federalism.

The process has been somewhat laboured and tortuous, but it is a fair and good process. Both sides of politics were committed to the process and forbore the process. In fact, the process was started under the previous government. Why has there been complete bipartisanship? Why did the previous government start this process, which some members opposite now describe as anachronistic? The answer is: because what this bill achieves is something very, very important. The end of male preference primogeniture, or the 'younger brother' rule, as it has sometimes become known, is an incredibly important constitutional reform and one that we inherit. The bill is far from insignificant. It is ends a 300-year old rule of male preference primogeniture which prejudiced the interests of earlier born female members of the Royal Family in favour of elevating the interests of their younger brothers. That was a rule which was inequitable, unfair and deeply impractical. It is ironic when you consider that the great English monarchs of the modern age have all been female—Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria. And this is a change which would allow for a further great English monarch who is a female.

The rule survived for far too long, and the importance of its final demise should not be underestimated here. It is a little bit of a shame that that has not been the focus of this debate, but rather it has drifted onto the issue of republicanism. But the long-awaited establishment of a non-discriminatory rule of succession to the throne means that equal rights and non-discriminatory treatment for women have been achieved in a field of great importance, and a conservative field where those important principles have failed to penetrate for hundreds of years. It is a very significant reform in that respect.

This reform was instituted at the time of the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. I recall at CHOGM—being the state Attorney-General at the time that it was held in Perth—these words from the former Prime Minister:

These things seem straightforward, but just because they seem straightforward to our modern minds doesn't mean that we should underestimate their historical significance, changing as they will for all time the way in which the Monarchy works and changing its history. So I'm very glad this moment in history has been made in Perth.

That gave due credence to the very significant changes that have been brought about in this bill.

I will now make a short comment about the member for Isaac's contributions. How do you manage to turn a speech about legislation that you support, that you commenced when you were in government and that you entirely agree with, into a political point-scoring opportunity? It is an impressive effort, but of course the habits of barristers die very hard. How do you describe something that you support, that you commenced, that you agree with in every way, and that many of your own members agree is of some serious significance, as anachronistic?

The rhetorical question was put by the member for Isaacs: 'How will the member for Pearce explain this in his electorate?' Well, rather simply really. My electorate, like most Australian electorates, has a mix of people, some who are republicans and some who are monarchists and then a whole bunch who think there are probably more important issues facing the nation, given the strengths of our structural system as set out in our present Constitution. To the monarchists I will say that this ends an inequitable and gender discriminatory rule, the continuation of which would have weakened the institution itself which a monarchist might favour. To republicans I would point out that, even though you might prefer some other model of selection for the head of state, structurally this is a fundamental and critical improvement on the present system.

Given that both sides support it—it was commenced under Labor and finalised by this government—why is it that members on this side of the House can be characterised as anachronistic, or 'reactionary' was a word used, or conservative, or 'fuddy-duddy' might be the expression, but members opposite can support the bill but be bold and progressive? It seems to be because some members opposite who would prefer a republic support the bill in the context of preferring a republic. On this point, I might raise one observation. When you support progressive causes, as moving to a republic may well be, at what point—and I think the question arises fairly—is it that you have so little progress towards your stated goal that you are no longer progressive?

To restate it: how timid can a person's actions be towards a stated goal when they actually have the ability to move you towards the stated goal—that is, in government—before their progressive credentials can be called into fair scrutiny?

I asked this question because many members opposite seem to think that any progress from this point—very significant constitutional form that we adopt through these acts towards something else—is somehow a matter of simplicity or clarity and that there is not good debate to be had. The member for Perth, my old friend, in a matter of an intervention, simply said, 'We would just be moving from one system to another, where the Governor-General would just be called something different.' But that is not the case.

If you did not move to a system of a head of state appointed in a different fashion you must work out how you would point that head of state in a different fashion. That is a matter of enormous controversy. It then follows that you would have to think about whether or not you codify the reserve powers. But if you change an appointment for the head of state—that you would necessarily have to do under a republic—do you change the reserve powers to write them up, or do you write them down?

In any event, if you appoint a new head of state who has something that is either a direct or indirect mandate, do you create a situation that makes a 1975 constitutional crisis more or less likely? And if it is more likely, is that a good thing? If it is less likely, does that mean that the executive government loses many of the checks and balances that have existed over it by virtue of the operation of the Governor-General at the moment? These are constitutionally complicated questions that lend themselves far more to sober detailed debate than they do to notions such as national identity, which is not to deny that those former notions are a part of this process.

I do not necessarily blame members opposite—or indeed the Leader of the Opposition—for, at times, appearing a lion in the republican cause in opposition and a lamb in government, because the reality of the situation is that any such progressive moves would be very complicated and very difficult. What I found very instructive was that after the Leader of the Opposition's very well written and delivered speech on 26 January, about moving towards a republic, he said afterwards at a press conference: 'Let's rally behind an Australian republic.' But in the same press conference Mr Shorten said that while he was not yet pushing for a second referendum on the proposal it was time for a debate about national identity.

It raises the question, when we hear so much fervent republican spirit here and so much confidence that this is a simple thing to do that everyone agrees with: why has there been such immense timidity by members opposite when for six years in government they had the opportunity to raise this issue? Looking at the Leader of the Opposition—just doing a quick search of HansardI could only find six occasions in his entire time in parliament, other than today—

See this speech in context