Fiona Scott (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Succession to the Crown Bill 2015. This bill dates back to 1772. It is a piece of legislation that dates from 16 years prior to when the First Fleet arrived in Botany Bay; needless to say, it needs an update. Viewing this legislation from a 2015 mindset, it would be easy to remark that this is a rather quirky and archaic piece of British legislation. However, the serious side of this legislation is that it does highlight how far we have come. Putting aside the obvious 'monarchy versus republic' debate, I think we also need to acknowledge that at its centre this bill finally provides gender equality to the British monarchy. It acknowledges that a boy child is equal to a girl child and that gender should not be a discriminating factor disqualifying a female.

As it stands, the selection of the English monarch centres around a Marriage Act that is based on gender. This act does finally break one of the oldest glass ceilings, which has been enshrined in legislation and tradition. It is time to reflect on how these laws came to be and the journey that have taken. From the Tudor dynasty we have the legacy of Henry VIII, Bloody Mary, Elizabeth I and, ultimately, the reformation of the Church of England. It is apt to remember the sacrifice and martyring of Protestants and Catholics alike. And today, in 2015, this most quirky piece of legislation will pass through the House of Representatives and to the Senate and on to seek royal assent—and not a single drop of blood will be spilt.

In reality it is an act from another era—when King George II learnt two of his brothers had married commoners. In a time of empire, such marriages were seen as eroding the wealth of the Crown. To protect the dynasty, the act requires descendants to have their marriages approved. Those descendants are now many: some of them do not know their marriages might be technically null and void and others would prefer not to bother getting royal permission.

This new act will mean only the six closest to the throne will continue to need permission in this system. Anyone outside the six will automatically have past marriages validated. We get offended today that the selection of heirs discriminates against women and they are not even allowed to marry Catholics. In fact, it is quite laughable. But until a generation or so ago it was common that the eldest male received the family inheritance. The ALP knows all too well the arguments that have raged between Protestants and Catholics. Indeed Bartholomew Santamaria for many years very closely aligned religion and politics, seeing a split in the ALP and the formation of the DLP.

Even King John's 1215 Magna Carta, which delivered accessible, fast and fair justice, has been updated over and over again. In fact, the idea that it provided fair laws and justice for all is incorrect. Initially, serfs—the peasants—were excluded from the charter. However, I would like to highlight some other examples of some of the more obscure pieces of legislation brought before a Westminster system of government. For instance, it is against the law to die in the English parliament—only a couple of years ago it was voted the stupidest law in Britain. Under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, you cannot fire a cannon if it is placed within 300 yards of a dwelling. Nor can you walk along the pavement with a plank of wood. And then there is the 1279 law banning the wearing of a suit of armour in the parliament! And apparently it is perfectly legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow—provided you do not do it on a Sunday.

It would be irresponsible of me to not acknowledge the last time we saw a republic in Britain. In 1644 His Highness by Grace and God and Republic, the First Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland—the one and only Oliver Cromwell—decreed that eating mince pies on Christmas Day was to be banned. That was a fine piece of legislation that I am was sure to secure the longevity of the British republic!

In 1848, only 167 years ago, it was an act of treason to place a postage stamp with the monarch's head upside down. There was the Scottish Licensing Act of 1872 that forbade anyone from operating a cow while intoxicated. Perhaps a contemporary take on that piece of legislation would be forbidding anyone from operating an iPhone whilst intoxicated. Going topless in Liverpool was outlawed unless you were a clerk in a tropical fish store, but I do not quite understand why and I am not sure how that would have worked with Lady Godiva only a few suburbs away in Coventry.

The point I make is that the world changes and we move on. For some, the Westminster system of democracy can be tedious and clunky, and, some may argue, even outmoded. But in the words of the British wartime prime minister, Winston Churchill:

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time …

In other words, the system is by no means perfect, but, despite our attempts to create other systems, the Westminster system of democracy still does prevail. One of its enduring features to all of us here in Australia is the stability it provides our country. If there is a single gift from Britain, it is just that: the stable democracy that we do have here in Australia. In essence, many of the kinks have been ironed out over the passage of time, through wars and bloodshed and through the breaking down of a feudal system. Am I saying that we do not have further to go? Of course we do. Am I saying that our system of government does not need to continually evolve over a period of time? Of course it does.

If we look back: this has all started really from the Battle of Hastings in 1066, the Doomsday Book, the Anglo-Saxons and the Viking king. England stood as the land of riches and wealth with a political system that has learnt and developed and, as such, has withstood just about everything. Even in those early years, the seeds were there. William devised a system of taking advice from landlords before making a ruling. This period was commonly known as the feudal system, and this early system really does mark back to our Senate. From 1215, the House of Lords was then put in place and an elected House of Commons was invoked 50 years later.

It is a system developed through hundreds of years of war with the French and the Scottish. There was the War of the Roses which led to the founding of the House of Tudor, after King Richard III was killed in combat. It survived the wars of the kingdoms where Scotland, Wales, Ireland and England were at each other's throats, coming together in 1801. It is a system that is based on the enlightenment of documents—I mentioned earlier the 1086 Doomsday Book. It is based on the power of separation of rights, as agreed in the 1215 Magna Carta. It is a system influenced by Martin Luther's 1512 Diet of Worms, which saw Oliver Cromwell go to civil war over the Protestant Reformation. It would lead to the important Bill of Rights in 1689 which gave Protestant's liberty and decreed cruel and unusual punishment to be illegal. It is a system that flourishes around the world.

The point is: we did inherit a true and trusted, stable political system, and we have been able to adapt it to now meet our Australian needs. Of course there is more work to be done. There is more work for us to further evolve. We do not have a bill of rights, and the reality is we possibly do not need one. We know who we are, and no matter which side of the political fence we sit on, we all agree with the basics of democracy: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, access to health and the right to a good education. We are lucky to have that. As I sit in the middle seat and watch the Middle East descend into more senseless bloodshed, I can only wonder when the agreement is to finally be reached, that when we move forward, a Westminster-style system, that tried and true method, might just work and might just save more needless bloodshed. I commend the bill to the house.

See this speech in context