Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on the Succession to the Crown Bill 2015, which will provide the parliament of Australia's assent on three important reforms. The first reform will end the system of male preference primogeniture, so that in future the order of royal succession in the United Kingdom will be determined simply by the order of birth—female heirs will no longer be sidelined by their younger brothers. The second reform will remove the bar on succession for an heir and successor of the sovereign who marries a Catholic. The existing restriction applies to Catholics alone and not to any other faith. The reform will apply to all existing marriages at the time the law comes into force, as well as to future marriages. The third reform is to limit the requirement that the sovereign consent to the marriage of a descendant of his late Majesty King George II to the first six persons in line to the Crown.

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 UK legislation as soon as all 16 realms, including Australia, implement the reforms in their jurisdictions. I note that, as agreed at COAG, all states have passed laws authorising the Commonwealth to enact this legislation for the whole of Australia. These reforms serve to modernise the monarchy. I agree with the member for Pearce and Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister that this is a landmark reform.

I appreciate that some members today in this debate have used this opportunity to advocate for a republic and an Australian head of state. They have used this opportunity to criticise the English monarchy and some of the—let's face it—antiquated laws on which the monarchy was built. I do not propose to add to that debate other than to say I respect the right of every member of this parliament to advocate for the Australia he or she wants to see in the future. For me, I would like to see an Australian head of state one day. I know many Australians share that aspiration, including members on both sides of the House, but I do not consider now is the time.

Under the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, I do not consider we are seeing in this country at this time the appetite to move to another referendum on this question. Queen Elizabeth has provided decades of service to all Commonwealth nations, including to Australia. She is loved and admired by many. I think the Leader of the Opposition has mistimed and miscalculated the start of his campaign for an Australian republic. In fact, on this point it is worth noting that later this year, 11 September 2015, will mark the day that Queen Elizabeth II becomes the longest-serving British monarch—63 years, exceeding the length of Queen Victoria's reign.

I have to put on record my disappointment about the very partisan contribution by the member for Canberra in this debate, including the comments that she made that these reforms will have little or no impact on our nation. Regardless of whether members support a monarchy or a republic, these reforms are significant as a strong symbol and in substance. Today in my contribution I choose to celebrate the modernisation of the monarchy in a number of important respects. I choose to celebrate the removal of deeply entrenched discrimination—discrimination against women and Catholics.

The reform that royal succession will be determined by birth not gender applies to any person born after 28 October 2011. This was a proposal reportedly put forward at the urging of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge some two years before their first son, Prince George, was born. I think it is fair to say they are the epitome of the modern Royal Family. Last April, it was a great pleasure to battle the crowd of MPs, many of whom are republicans, to meet the duke and duchess during their visit to Canberra. It was a very special time. I was delighted to present the royal couple with a Rip Curl wetsuit, on behalf of the people of Corangamite, for their young son, Prince George. I had a chat to the duchess about this and she told me the wetsuit would very much come in handy and be perfect for those chilly British summers.

I grew up in a family who believed that anything was possible, regardless of gender. My mother, Ann, was a proud champion of women. She was a Victorian member of parliament in the 1990s. As the minister for housing and Aboriginal affairs, she was also a champion for the most disadvantaged in our community and for Indigenous peoples. Upon my election to this place, we became the first and, to date, only mother and daughter to be elected as members of parliament in this country.

Last week, I attended a wonderful event at the Otway NouriShed held by the Lavers Hill and Gellibrand Community Houses in my electorate of Corangamite, deep in the magnificent Otways. In celebration of International Women's Day, we watched the film Utopia, which told the story of how women won the right to vote in Australia. When I returned home and explained to my nine-year-old son, Jeremy, where I had been, he could not believe that at one stage in our history women were prohibited from voting. He was just as incredulous when I told him that also, in part of our history, Indigenous peoples were prohibited from voting.

Our history is riddled with unjust laws, and it is important we work hard as a parliament and as a nation to right prior wrongs. In the 1930s, my grandfather Ern Henderson, a Catholic, could not get a bank loan because he was a Catholic. He managed to start a haberdashery business without the bank's help. I know many older Australians lived through this era and well remember this type of discrimination. In fact, I might just add, on a personal note, in my final year of school I was appointed school captain of Geelong College—and it caused a bit of a storm. That is because the school I attended was historically Presbyterian and then a Uniting Church school. There was enormous objection to my appointment, because I was a Catholic and because I was a girl. I still am a girl.

This was in the 1980s, at a time when you would not think this type of open discrimination would be alive and well. For women in this country, we live and breathe ongoing discrimination. It is incredibly important as a parliament that we work as hard as we can, in substance, and, with the strong symbols that are so important to people, to rid this country of discrimination, both direct and indirect.

It is significant that the bar on succession for an heir of the sovereign who marries a Catholic is being removed. I do note, with some disapproval, that Catholics continue to be barred from ascending the throne. Young Australians do not understand many of the injustices of our past. For young children—like my son, Jeremy—they simply do not understand the concept of discriminating on the basis of gender or religion. That is something to celebrate. For this reason alone, this bill is important. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context