Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

'Breathes there the man with soul so dead,

'Who never to himself hath said;

'This is my own, my native land!'

Those fine words from Walter Scott have never been uttered by any Australian head of state about Australia. Under our Constitution, they never could be uttered. That is because, while no British citizen can ever be Australia's head of government, only a British citizen can ever be Australia's head of state.

In 1999, Australia held a referendum. It was a three-cornered contest between bipartisan-parliamentary-appointment republicans, direct-election republicans and monarchists. As the member for Wentworth has pointed out, the monarchists:

That was half a generation ago.

Some counsel patience. They argue that the push for an Australian as head of state should wait until King Charles III ascends the throne. But that argument fundamentally misunderstands the argument for an Australian republic. Our quibble is not with Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles or any of their heirs and successors. Each of these individuals has done their job diligently. Indeed, a belief in the republic does not lessen our respect for them as individuals. In 2012, when Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall visited Canberra, I was pleased to welcome them on the tarmac of Canberra airport, wearing my Australian Republican Movement cufflinks. Respect and politeness for the royal family sits alongside my passionate belief that Australia should have one of our own as head of state.

Last year, Prince William and Kate Middleton welcomed their baby, George, into the world, and today 800 Australian babies will be born. I congratulate William, Kate and all of those parents. To be a parent is one of the greatest blessings we can receive, but I cannot for the life of me see why baby George is better suited to grow up to be an Australian head of state than any Australian baby. The 800 or so Australian children born today will grow up around gum trees and sandy beaches. They will call their friends 'mate' and barrack for the baggy green, the Wallabies and the Socceroos. Their success in life will not be decided by their surname. If they say they live in a castle, it will only be because they are quoting Darryl Kerrigan.

In short, those 800 babies born today will be Australians, and every one of them should be able to aspire to be our head of state. Some of those who disagree with this view sometimes claim that the Governor-General is our head of state. At best, this is a contentious, strained protestation. As members of the Parliament of Australia, we all swore or affirmed our allegiance to the Queen, not to the Governor-General. At state dinners visiting heads of state toast the Queen of Australia. It is her image that is on our currency. Australian government websites say, 'Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II.'

The slogan 'Don't know? Vote no' has never been more powerful in Australian public life. Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, used it when he was campaigning for the monarchy in 1999, and has deployed it relentlessly in recent years, including against a market-based solution to climate change, fibre-to-the-home broadband and fiscal stimulus to save jobs. It is a seductively simple line, but one that is more dangerous than ever as Australia grapples with complex challenges. In the Asian century, how do we think it looks to our Indonesian, Chinese, Japanese and Korean friends that we cannot shrug off the anachronism of having a member of the house of Windsor as our head of state? How does it sit with our claimed belief in the fair go when the qualification to be our head of state is to be British, white and preferably male? Is this really the image we want to project to the world?

Through this motion, I call upon the parliament to make it a priority to hold a referendum to make Australia a republic. In so doing, we will make it clear to ourselves and the world that instead of a foreign child in a foreign land, Australians trust an Australian child to grow up and be an Australian head of state—a child who knows their own, native land in their living, Australian soul.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and I reserve my right to speak.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on this motion, taking note of its rather odd timing given that Australia's support for moving to a republic is currently at a 20-year low and an impending royal visit is in its final planning stages. Roy Morgan polling shows support for an Australian republic at its lowest since the push for a local as our head of state built up steam in the first half of the nineties. Only 34 per cent of Australians aged over 14 support a republic—the lowest level since 1991. The Morgan figures indicate young Australians are just as keen on the monarchy as their older compatriots.

Many republicans object to heredity being the basis of any power in the state, and understandably so. Such monarchical powers are listed sonorously in textbooks, yet they are a matter of form rather than reality. The supposed power of a constitutional monarch to summon parliament and appoint a prime minister or member of parliament is a mechanical device that treats the monarch merely as the state anthropomorphised. Were the Queen to behave as if the implied discretion were real, her office would instantly crumble. The last time a prime minister was chosen by the monarch against the wish of the British parliament was in 1832, at the height of the reform crisis. When William IV asked the Duke of Wellington to form a government, the old soldier, reactionary as he was, eventually had to concede that those days were over. Later crises have all been resolved by constitutional protocols and the arithmetic of parliament.

As we can observe from the previous parliament, hung parliaments are much enjoyed by political historians, when the will of the people, and thus of the electorate, is not necessarily clear-cut, and so a superior office is needed as referee. What happens, for example, when the largest party cannot win the House of Representatives support? The answer lies in the huddle of crown officers, constitutional lawyers and parliamentary leaders that gather at such times. It does not lie in the untrammelled discretion of a hereditary monarch.

A modern monarch, just like any other head of state, is also expected to work. Should anyone doubt this, I challenge them to spend a day in the company of Her Majesty and see who retires first. De Gaulle might have described the job as being about 'blessing chrysanthemums', but the reality of a nation state is that someone must bless them, and it is a waste of time for a chief executive. The strain is well known on the French and American presidencies, which combine party leadership and executive office with head of state. The American president is estimated to spend at least half of his time on ceremonial and related duties which in Britain are not only delegated to the monarch but across an entire extended family. This is not just a matter of a constant, often tedious round of celebrating, rewarding, consoling, receiving and entertaining as much as a thousand times a year by some member of the royal family; it is a matter of those tasks being done by someone who represents the nation as a whole.

Two things go without saying. One is that the heredity principle will always be subject to performance, as it was in the 17th century. It would not survive an idiot or a criminal, or a holder who blatantly abused the dignified status of monarch. The solution of such a crisis is hard to script, but a solution there would be. Can any monarch ever hope to be proof against reform? The steamroller of human rights law is already bearing down on it. In 1998, a private member's bill in the British parliament questioning the principle of male succession led to the Labour government agreeing to take the matter forward.

All nations have elements of magic, myth and ceremony as part of their processes. These may reside in palaces and churches, museums and galleries, rituals and traditions. Hereditary monarchy is a spectacular embellishment, but in the same category. We would not invent it if it did not exist, but only because its essence lies in encapsulating a nation's continuity over time, which a family is uniquely positioned to do. One should not try to justify this, but politics is about more than reason. Where monarchy exists, as in Britain, Australia and all Commonwealth nations, it carries advantages. Just as a monarch is lucky in inheriting the throne, so a nation is sometimes fortunate to inherit a monarch.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pride that I rise to speak about this motion to do with a referendum on the republic. I think this is the longest time in the history of Australia that we have not had a referendum on any topic, and it is time to return to this issue. I remember 6 November 1999 very well. I think I was working in the member for Ryan's electorate on that day. It was the day of the Wallabies' World Cup win at Twickenham where that great republican John Eales received the William Webb Ellis cup from Her Majesty. I think that moment summed up the dichotomy that is Australia. There was a republican sportsperson, someone who is perfect—they say nobody is perfect but John Eales is as close as they get sporting-wise—receiving the trophy where Australia won the World Cup.

I remember that day, and it is time to revisit that. As the member for Fraser mentioned, what logic can there possibly be for the fact that no Australian child can ever be our head of state? I heard the words from the member for Ryan, who talked about the signs and symbols, with her argument basically being that our head of state, the Queen of England—the Queen of Australia when she is here—is effectively only a sign and symbol. As anyone knows, as a Catholic or as a politician, signs and symbols always represent the truth that is behind them.

I know that we lift the mace every day in the House of Representatives, and that is an important symbol. The Speaker guards the mace, the symbol of the people's power. And I know that this building is designed to show that line of power from the Great Hall through the cabinet room through to the Prime Minister's office, to show that the Prime Minister is the people's representative, but there is also that other great line of power from the House of Representatives through the middle of the building under the flag representing the Australian people through to the other place. It is an interesting part of Australian history that this building has gone 14 years without our considering this question.

I think that in 1999, as the member for Fraser detailed, Malcolm Turnbull and the other people who led the republican referendum were hoodwinked, were tricked, were outmanoeuvred, by Sophie Mirabella, Tony Abbott and the monarchists. Sadly, some Labor people were a part of that process. I respect their rights. I personally have never seen a need to create another politician, which would be what would happen if we had a directly elected president, but I am more open to a discussion about that process now than I was on 6 November 1999. I do think we need to go to the Australian people. If we had a directly elected President, if it were done under similar rules and concepts to what the member for Ryan said, in that they were only symbolic and were not able to—I know that Her Excellency the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, is the head of our defence forces, but I do not think there is a great chance of her going out and rustling up the fleet to invade another nation at the moment. Obviously things have changed over the years.

We have progressed as a nation. There is a theory—constitutional lawyers even say—that since the Australia Act we are effectively a republic anyway. Obviously the signs and symbols that we acknowledge in this building and throughout the RSLs throughout Australia suggest that that is not the case. King Charles III and his successors, be they male or female, do have real capacity to say that they are our head of state. I understand that argument. That is why we do need to revisit this and we do need to educate. I do not want the Australian people to confuse their popular support for and interest in well-known people from the United Kingdom such as the prince who will be visiting. That is great, but because someone is well known and popular does not mean that they necessarily should be our head of state; otherwise, we would end up with Kim Kardashian as our head of state if we used that logic! I believe that we should have a proper process and we should have an Australian head of state in the near future, and this government should bring on this referendum. (Time expired)

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Sitting suspended from 13:34 to 16:00