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

I rise to support the bill moved by the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Assistant Minister for the Public Service for the purposes that it is needed—to update our Australian legislation. The Crown References Amendment Bill 2023 is necessary to update references to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in acts of parliament now that His Majesty King Charles III has become the King of Australia. Obviously, by that I mean, 'King Charles III, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of his other realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth and Defender of the Faith', although I do note that, as a Catholic, I don't think the King is defending my faith.

The accession of King Charles III to the British throne, following the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, creates an inconsistency among Commonwealth legislation that references the head of state, due to the persistent mortality that breaks that every now and then with our monarchs. This becomes an issue every time the sex of our head of state—who, I remind the House, lives on the other side of the world—changes from a female sovereign to a male sovereign. The fact that this legislation is necessary shows me how outdated monarchies are as systems of governance in the modern world.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

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

I take the support from the member for Kennedy. When I used to teach history, my students were always fascinated by the concept of the divine right of kings. The idea that one person has been ordained by God to rule over not just their own country but a dominion thousands of kilometres away is very hard to justify in 2023. As the modern, developed nation that we are, such ancient notions no longer hold relevance in our contemporary society. This legislation before the House in 2023 is a stark reminder that it is long past time that our nation revisited the question of becoming a republic.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

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

That is my very strong opinion, and I think the member for Kennedy might have some strong views on that as well. I'm proud to be part of a government that has introduced the first ever Assistant Minister for the Republic, the Hon. Matt Thistlethwaite. While we acknowledge the strong cultural, diplomatic, legal, sporting and many other ties that our country shares with the British people, I do point out that we are not British. Monarchy is not a fundamental part of our national identity. Ask our First Nations people. Ask those descendants of the Irish convicts that came out in the First Fleet and many other people. It is disappointing that debates around the idea of a republic in the past have forgotten that.

So this bill replaces references to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II with 'the Sovereign', providing consistency across existing and future legislation and avoiding the need to make future amendments should a queen ascend the throne, as well as clarifying language that reflects Commonwealth practice.

This bill would allow legislation to reference 'the Sovereign' by the office that they hold regardless of the corporeal presence sitting on the 700-year-old coronation chair, or St Edward's Chair, as it is called. This is certainly not a controversial or revolutionary proposal because we do the same thing with ministers, parliamentarians and other statutory office holders. While the crown is a part of our system of government—I don't think there is a crown in here; it's still a part of our system of government—this measure recognises the crown appropriately, similar to the current Commonwealth laws, but removes the consistent need to update references depending on the gender of the office bearer.

This bill also introduces the definition of 'Senior Counsel' in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, to replace references to 'King's Counsel' and 'Queen's Counsel'. While this country continues to swear obedience to the British Crown, legislation such as this will be necessary and will continue to take up more of this parliament's valuable time.

Quite frankly, while I agree with the principle and legislative objects of this bill, any time that this House spends discussing a sovereign who lives thousands of kilometres away must amuse the people for whom we're all here to govern. The very notion that we actually need this bill to maintain consistency in our legislative framework cheapens the values that we claim to embody as a people. It is the notion that we are beholden to a hierarchical feudal system of governance that doesn't sit right with much of the Australian public.

I believe it is time our country had an Australian head of state—someone who understands our unique place in the world, our commitment to egalitarianism and the fair go. I know we had the debate back in November 1999, but the reality is that if we are to develop as an entirely Australian identity then we must become a fully independent nation.

The 1999 referendum on the republic failed because Australians couldn't agree on what model we should adopt, but, at that time, 24 years ago, many Australians agreed that we should become a republic. A republic would represent a change to our government and a chance to make amends and to reconcile us to our place in history and our role in the world as a leader and as a beacon—a great democratic model .

When Elizabeth took over as monarch, back in 1952, Australia was much more British, I would suggest. Most Australians, if they held a passport, held a British passport. We sang 'God save the Queen'. I certainly was singing that all through the seventies. Every day I went to primary school, we sang 'God save the Queen'. The majority of the population either came from Great Britain or Ireland or were of British descent in some way. The Australia of today is a completely different nation. Today migrants make up about 30 per cent of all Australians, and, although British immigrants remain the largest foreign-born population, the number of Indian- and Chinese-born Australians is increasing rapidly. I think they've been No. 1 and No. 2 for the last four, five or six years.

A republic means reimagining what it means to belong to this country. The legal idea of 'Australia' was founded on the idea of terra nullius and also the exclusion of non-white people, something—the terra nullius fiction—which was overturned by the High Court in the Mabo decision in June 1992.

One of the first pieces of legislation of the federal parliament back in the early 1900s was the White Australia policy. Now we are different. It is time to rectify that by having different people—First Nations people, migrants—sitting at the table. It is up to them and to us to help determine our future type of government. Obviously that would only be determined by another referendum.

Section 16 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 stipulates that references to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in Commonwealth acts are interpreted as references to the sovereign. As such, this bill does not change references to Queen Elizabeth II in existing legislation, nor does it make amendments to the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 or the Australia Act 1986. And don't get me started on the idea that you have to change the crown, the actual crown, in our letterhead because the crown has changed under King Charles. We don't have to do all of that stuff, thankfully. I can imagine the waste of money.

This bill ensures congruence in references to the sovereign across Australia's legislative framework and demonstrates how deeply ingrained British influence is in our institutional processes. Obviously many good things have come from that—the rule of law, Westminster et cetera.

While certain personalities in the coalition have the audacity to claim that the legacy of colonialism does not have an ongoing negative impact on this country and on First Nations people in particular, as was said during the recent referendum, I would remind the House of the many historical injustices, massacres and violence perpetrated against the First Australians by the British Crown in the decades before the colonies federated. The genocide visited on so many mobs that we can see in the placenames of many Australian towns now, the attempted ethnic cleansing, the poisoned flour, the infected blankets, the stolen generations, the forced sterilisations—these are not for the history books. Many of these occurred in the lifetimes of people sitting in this chamber. More than 200 years of being told that your culture is worthless and feeling rejected from society, and we still have some politicians wondering why many Indigenous Australians choose to disengage or feel unrepresented.

In my lifetime, Indigenous Australians were still considered to be fauna. They weren't counted in our Constitution. Our people are still not mentioned in our Constitution, despite 60,000 years of connection to this wonderful land. Yet here we are discussing a bill that is necessary only because this country still swears fealty to the same Crown that was a part of that dispossessing and murdering of Australians in the past. At a time when many Australians, including us on this side of the House, are attempting to reconcile some of the entrenched disadvantages that First Nations Australians continue to suffer, what more proof do we need? We need to close that gap.

The legacy of imperial power in this country is literally written into our legislative framework. Some of those opposite speak of division when we strive for better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, but they're the first to stand in this place and defend a system that is predicated on the belief that one particular family has a sacred birthright bestowed by God. It saddens me that this bill is still necessary in a modern democratic society like Australia, but as a tool of updating references to the sovereign, I commend the bill to the House. In doing so, I recognise the growth of our country and the willingness that many have to stand on our own two feet in international politics, with our own identity, our own connections with the world to lead on so many things, as we have in the past. I look forward to a future where legislation such as this will no longer be necessary because we no longer have a foreign sovereign to reference, and instead have an Australian head of state.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't understand why the current government doesn't realise, as the previous speaker said, that the 20-cent coin has on it a lady that lives in England. What in heaven 's name is a lady that lives in England doing on a coin 7,000 kilometres away, or whatever we are. This is rather curious. If I were a person visiting Australia, I'd think there's something weird about these people. I tell you, there is something weird about us.

When the federal cabinet was advised that if the Japanese took Port Moresby there would be no way we could stop the invasion of Australia, it was decided to give all of Australia to the Japanese except Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, maybe. And all the rest was to be given to the Japanese because there was no way we could stop them. In actual fact, the southern army was made up of about 50,000 Japanese soldiers—great soldiers, who had never been defeated in 800 years of land warfare. They were on their way here—they'd landed in New Guinea and they were 10 days away from Port Moresby, and the federal cabinet had been advised that if they took Port Moresby they'd have air cover over Northern Australia, and there was no way we could stop the invasion of Australia. So we were to give up all of Australia, and take a little narrow strip of Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, and try to defend that. Now, hold on a minute—there were 50,000 Japanese coming at us, but we had 60,000 troops. Where were our troops? Where was our army? Our army was defending the Libyan Desert in Africa. With the Japanese 10 days away, our government had its army defending the Libyan Desert in Africa and Singapore—a port with no ships in it. What the hell were we doing defending that?

That is a product of that coin. We have not grown up as a nation. We are far from growing up as a nation. The ALP has fallen well short of the mark, which I think my formidable colleague over here would like to have said, but because he is in a party system, he can't. For heaven's sake, get rid of the affirmation that we believe that all people are free and equal. If you've got a monarch on your coin, you do not believe that all people are free and equal. And in every Constitution in the world—the American, the French, the Japanese—they start off by saying, 'All men are created free and equal with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' They all start in that same way. It would be a hypocrisy for us to start that way!

Everyone who comes to this place swears allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, with one exception. I didn't, and I never have. In my 51 years in politics I've refused to swear allegiance to a foreign monarch. I'm an Australian. My father was a great royalist—he was a bit of a warrior; he liked arming and all that sort of thing—so I don't come from a family that has that Irish rebel background. No; I don't. But you know I do read history books, and the history of monarchies is a very dark history. For 100 years Britain and France just tore everything out of that country in the Hundred Years War. It was brought to a close by Saint Joan of Arc, a little 19-year-old girl, but after 100 years of continuous warfare.

Monarchy would be one of the most diabolical examples of rulership in the history of the world. All of them are ambitious. Take the First World War. What was it about? Cousin Nicky didn't like Cousin Willie, and Cousin Willie had an inferiority complex with Cousin Georgie in England. That was really what it was about. And have a look at them! Tsar Nicholas is playing chess while Moscow is under the control of the rebel communists. He's sitting playing chess and writing a letter to his wife. If you want to choose the word 'moron' I think that would be a fairly good description. They were inbreeding over a period of centuries. His cousin had a withered arm from inbreeding over a period of centuries.

I love this one: Princess Diana's brother said, 'We are the rightful rulers of England.' He said: 'This mob are on the throne because they could not find one monarch, out of the 54 monarchs in Europe, that was not a Catholic.' They were all Catholics, so what were they going to do? They found this little duchy in Germany, the ruling class, and they said—I'm quoting Diana's brother—'Oh, this is an interesting fellow. He claims to be a king. He's not really a king, but he claims to be a king. George is his name. So tell us about this George.' 'Well, he's a certifiable imbecile. He should be in a lunatic asylum.' The ruling class said, 'Well that's good.' Mind you, I'm quoting Diana's brother. 'That's good. He's a certifiable imbecile.' His grandson thought he was a teapot; he used to go and pour himself out all the time. This is what you're taking as your monarch, as your ruler?

It doesn't finish there: 'He cannot speak a word of English and doesn't intend to learn the English language.' And the ruling class said: 'That's excellent. That's really good.' 'And he's not going to live in England.' 'Perfect! Put him on the throne straight away!' In actual fact, what Diana's brother said was true. That's really what happened.

The current bloke, in my opinion he has the morals of an alley cat. He's treated his wife appallingly—

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 88:

A Member must not refer disrespectfully to the—

King—

… for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations.

I think the member for Kennedy should withdraw.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Berowra. Will the member for Kennedy, out of respect for the House, withdraw his comments with respect to the King?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What comments do you object to?

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The alley cat one.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll withdraw that he's got the morals of an alley cat.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You withdraw?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I withdraw 'the morals of an alley cat'. He's never done a single thing to justify respect or, quite frankly, justify his existence. Has he ever had a job?

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, I'm sorry, but I have to draw your attention again to standing order 88. This is a reflection on the Crown.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This does not breach that rule. If I have an opinion that the bloke never worked, that's my opinion, and it's not necessarily derogatory. There are a lot of people who are proud of the fact they've never worked. Maybe you are. I don't know. Let me just continue. When you have an election—

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, I would ask—

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy, if you can just pause—

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's just interrupting because he doesn't want me to speak. He doesn't like to hear what I'm saying.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always enjoy hearing from the member for Kennedy, but we have standing orders in this place for a reason. The standing orders in this place are about ensuring that debate is conducted in a proper and civil manner, and it is not appropriate to deal with a reigning monarch in the manner in which the member for Kennedy is—

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is attempting to shut me up because he doesn't like what I'm saying. He's not affirming the rules of the House. He is attempting to shut me up.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy, can you please pause for just one moment. The member for Berowra does have the call.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to make one last point in relation to this point of order. His Majesty has lived a life of service, including service in the British defence force. The idea that he hasn't worked is not fair.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Honestly!

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy, I will read just read out, for the benefit of all in the chamber, with respect to standing order 88.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It says:

A Member must not refer disrespectfully to the Queen, the Governor-General, or a State Governor, in debate or for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations.

Can we pause the clock, please? The member for Kennedy, could you ensure that, in your further remarks on this bill, you do refer to standing order 88.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've taken about five minutes off me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and he's succeeded in taking five minutes off me, which is very complimentary. He's scared to listen to what I'm saying. He's laughing now; he thinks it's funny. Well I don't think it's funny, my friend. I don't think it's funny at all. Let me just continue. If you elect someone—let's take a bloke like John F. Kennedy. He's elected because he was an outstanding warrior, a man of very considerable bravery and leadership. He was also a Pulitzer Prize winner. Now that is a reason to have a person as the governor, the ruler of your country. I could use other examples.

Let me use an example that all these people will be shocked with: Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Is this bloke a good bloke to elect to parliament? He built one of the first peanut threshing machines in Australian history. He also came up the idea of a heavy bore for when you're clearing country to improve that country. He also founded the town of Hope Vale, which is the most successful First Australian town in the country. It produced Matty Bowen, one of the three greatest rugby league players ever. It produced the first blackfella member of parliament, Eric Deeral. It produced the first ordained priest in Australia—a Lutheran priest—of any denomination. It produced Noel Pearson. People would not like to say it, but I think he's one of the better intellects in the country, even though I strongly disagreed with him in the recent debate.

But it's extraordinary. That's Hope Vale, and it was founded by this bloke Joh Bjelke-Petersen. So, if you're going to say, 'Who are you going to put into parliament?' Well he's a good bloke to put in parliament. He's an achiever however you look at it. This bloke's a super achiever. He camped out for three months on horseback with Leo Rosendale—as I understand it, Noel Pearson's grandfather—as missionaries, in founding that town. So he's a great bloke to pick. When you pick him, what does he do? He creates the coal industry, the biggest earner of money for this country outside of the wool industry in the country's history, and he creates it out of nothing. This is a coal-importing country, and he turns Queensland into the biggest coal-exporting state on earth. He doubles the production of cattle, he doubles the production of cane, he quadruples the production of copper and he creates the tourism industry. It was a joke—they called it Beau Geste. There was a three-story building built on the Gold Coast, and everybody laughed at it because it was surrounded by a kilometre of sand. That was the way it was for nearly 10 years. Have a look at the Gold Coast today! When he was in his fifth year as Premier of the state, we had Beau Geste, just a big sand dune, which is now Broadbeach and Surfers Paradise.

You elect those people and that's what happens, but if you go around saying that our head of state is some lady living in England, or some bloke living in England—I mean, honestly, have you grown up as a nation? Are you proud of being an Australian, or are you ashamed of it? That point is a demonstration that you're ashamed of it. In the Second World War—the Americans were going to come and save us, or the British were going to come and save us—nobody came to save us, and we were so stupid and sycophantic that, with our entire three armies, we had two of them defending the desert, one of them defending a British port that had no ships in it, and no-one defending Australia! So the 39th Battalion was sent up there. I don't know all the ins and outs of the 39th battalion, but I tell you what: if you're going to put someone on your coin, I'd start with the leader of the Kalkadoon wars, when they tried to fight off the whitefellas. I'd put him on that coin, with his spear and his woomera. The previous speaker referred to this, but if you want to know whether we fought to keep the whitefellas out of my homeland, these are the names of the creeks: Spear Creek, Massacre Creek, Gunpowder Creek, Rifle Creek, Police Creek, Battle Mountain—you wouldn't need a lot of imagination to know what was going on there. So these people fought for the idea that we were different and we didn't want people coming in here telling us what we should do and what we shouldn't do. We were Australians, and we fought and died as Australians.

Let me go back to the 39th Battalion. I wasn't in the 39th; I was in the 49th Battalion, when we were at war with Indonesia. Thank goodness it blew over before we went up there, but I was the unit historian. All of the reports, I said to the colonel, were negative. We fell back. We failed to hold ground. We retreated and wilted under fire. 'So what do you want to do, Katter?' 'I want to go down to the RSL and ask around.' This was only about eighteen years after the Second World War finished. Maybe we were a fallback battalion, but, then again, maybe we weren't. So I went down there: 'Anyone here know anything about the 49th Battalion?' There are about a thousand men in a battalion. There were three battalions sent up there to stop the Japanese. The 39th did most of the fighting, but this was the 49th, one of the other three battalions. Someone said: 'Yes, mate. Come down here. The 49th was the worst hit of all. When they were relieved at Sanananda, there were only 28 of them able to walk out unassisted.' And he said, 'Do you know how many men left Port Moresby?' I said: '843 men left Port Moresby, and only 28 of us were able to walk out. That was all that was left of us.'

So surely you'd put Ralph Honner on your coin, not some British monarch, demonstrating that you don't believe that all people are born free and equal and that you don't believe you're a separate country, that you're a nationalistic Australian. You're not proud of being Australian if you've got that coin! I do not applaud what the government is doing here. They could easily have removed the monarch and put, in its place, as I am moving, the sovereignty of the Australian people. But you don't believe in the sovereignty of the Australian people, I'm sorry, if you're in the ALP, because you're doing nothing about it. And you most certainly don't believe in the sovereignty of the Australia people if you're in the Liberal Party, because they oppose even this point of change.

In conclusion, we have got to grow up. We have got to realise that we are in the same moral position that we were in 230 years ago, with no-one living on a continent the size of China, two or three times the size of Europe, the same size as the United States. There's no-one living there. There's just a little, narrow coastal belt of population, and the rest of it is empty. Well, guess where everything comes from—the copper, the coal, the cattle! It's open, and it's because we have not become patriotic, flag-waving Australians.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition will be opposing the Crown References Amendment Bill 2023. This bill is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It is very interesting when you look at this bill and the acts that it seeks to amend, including the Customs Act 1901, the Defence Act 1903, the Defence Service Homes Act 1918, the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and the Superannuation Act 1922. I highlight those acts because, right throughout the long reign of Queen Elizabeth II, those acts referred to a king or His Majesty, and it didn't seem to disturb the administration of the Commonwealth such that we needed a bill like this. Why was that? It was because, as the explanatory memorandum makes very clear here:

In accordance with section 16 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, existing references to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in Commonwealth Acts, are construed as references to the present Sovereign, His Majesty King Charles III.

So this is solving a problem that doesn't exist and is more reflective of the fact that the government's legislative agenda is so thin that they've brought acts before us that are just not necessary.

The Crown References Amendment Bill 2023 makes several amendments to a variety of acts to replace references to 'Her Majesty', 'the Queen' and 'the King' with 'the Sovereign'. The bill creates a new term for senior counsel to include King's Counsel and Queen's Counsel. The bill amends oaths and affirmations by removing references to His or Her Majesty and replacing them with a direction to insert the applicable pronoun. The reason the coalition is opposing this is that when the coalition asked if the government had consulted with the Governor-General on the bill, we were advised that the Prime Minister and the cabinet had no intention of consulting the Governor-General until the bill had reached its royal assent stage. The government wanted to pass the Crown References Amendment Bill without even speaking to the King's representative in Australia, the Governor-General. The Prime Minister wanted to pass the Crown References Amendment Bill before speaking to the Crown. The coalition will not be supporting this bill until we have assurances that the government has consulted with the Crown's representative in Australia, the Governor-General.

The fact that the Labor government is considering this bill clearly illustrates the priorities of the government in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. It's clear that this government doesn't have a plan for our economy. While Australians are hurting, this government's priority is semantic changes to legislation rather than measures to put downward pressure on inflation and support cost-of-living relief. As somebody who supports the constitutional monarchy in this country, I will note that there is one advantage of this particular bill: it bolsters an argument made by constitutional monarchists in the 1999 referendum that the Queen, as she was at that time, was the sovereign, not the head of state; the head of state was the Governor-General. This actually clearly clarifies that the King now, or any future king or queen, is indeed the sovereign, and it helps those of us who are seeking to make that argument in any future republic debate that might occur in this country.

I want to respond to some comments made by the member for Kennedy and, in particular, defend the system of constitutional monarchy that we have here. If the member for Kennedy is right and he's never sworn allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, he puts himself in a similar position to that position that Senator Thorpe put herself in in the Senate, where she refused to swear allegiance and was told that, in effect, not swearing allegiance made her ineligible to sit in the house. So I thought that was a rather interesting admission he made. The member for Kennedy said a few things about the sovereignty of the Australian people. The High Court confirmed in a series of cases in the 1990s that the Australian people are indeed sovereign.

When you look at the legislative changes that have been made to the position of the Crown in Australia over several years, from the Statute of Westminster in 1931, which was adopted in 1942, through to the Australia Act in 1986, it is clear that Australia is an independent and sovereign nation. We make all of our own laws in this country. The UK Parliament has no power to make laws about Australia anymore. Since 1986, Australian courts have been the final arbiters of decisions in this country. Appeals haven't gone to the Privy Council, and English common law is now only one of a series of important, comparable sources that we draw our jurisprudence from; it has no more of a special status than that of any other country. Thirdly, as the events of 1975 demonstrated, where the Queen did not get involved, where she stayed out of those events, the executive power of the Commonwealth is exercised by Australians through the Governor-General as their representative.

I disagree with many of the things that the member for Kennedy said about the position of the monarchy in Australia. I think there are great advantages to having a system of constitutional monarchy in this country. I want to talk about some of them in the remaining time here, because I think it is important to put some of these things on the record.

The Crown in this country is a wonderful symbol of service and continuity. In an ever-changing world it is important to have some symbols that remind us of the long passage from absolute autocracy, which absolute monarchy originally was, through to the rise of parliament and the wonderful system of measured constitutional monarchy in this country that we have today. In the King, in the monarchy itself, we have a living symbol of that continuity of Australia.

I will take the interjection from the member for Kennedy. Of course all people are equal. All Australians are equal. But the beauty of constitutional monarchy is that you have a sovereign above politics. If you want to have a sovereign above politics, there is only one way of doing that, and that is by having a system of constitutional monarchy. In any other way, you end up with a politician as president, whether that politician is chosen by the parliament or by the people.

When you have a politician, they're elected and they have a mandate. Therefore, when you give somebody a mandate, they will look to exercise power. The great benefit of the monarchy, as Churchill famously said, is that 'it's important not for the power it wields, but for the power it denies others.' I think it's good that at the top of our system, despite the inexhaustible ambitions of people who are elected to this place, there is one office that is apolitical, above all others, and that is the Crown in this country.

When you compare our system of government to the United States, the equivalent position is held by a politician who can never bring the country together. We've seen some particularly divisive politics in the United States over recent years with a series of their presidents, including a president that even refused to accept the will of the people when they lost office. I think that that is an argument for why you actually need a sovereign above politics, as we do in our great system of constitutional monarchy that we have in this country.

Our governors-general and our state governors have done a terrific job. They know that their job is to represent the Crown in this country. They have no mandate, they are not elected and they must conduct themselves in accordance with the traditions and conventions of the Crown and bring honour to that office. With very few exceptions, we have had governors and governors-general who have done that. They have been outstanding people who have furthered the position of the Crown in this country because they have acted in accordance with traditions and conventions that have developed throughout the centuries—first in Britain and then in this country, in our own uniquely Australian version of the monarchy.

Secondly, having someone at the top of the political system that is not political allows that role to provide leadership above politics in a way no politician can. We've seen that both in the life of the present King and in the life of his mother, and in the lives of other members of the Royal Family, including in the way in which they've spoken out on issues well before politicians did, such as on climate change, the AIDS virus and mental health. These are some of the issues that they can provide leadership on above politics, which is important.

Our Constitution provides for stability. In recent years, we have had a series of political leaders who have not served a full term of office, whether they were Australian prime ministers or state premiers, so it's often very difficult to know who the next Prime Minister will be. But we know, for almost the next 100 years, who the next King will be—there'll be King Charles, then King William and then King George—and that's a good thing. It is good that we know that there is that stability, that continuity and that certainty in an ever-changing world. That certainty means that at the top of our system the office of monarch is not subject to political intrigue and factional infighting. That elevates the office, and I think that that is a really good idea.

If we were to move to a republic, particularly an elected presidency, you can imagine the sorts of contenders that we would get for that role. You can imagine people who would exercise the extraordinary resources of somebody like a Clive Palmer or a Simon Holmes a Court to try and get themselves or somebody that they could move around elected, and I think that that would be a very bad thing. It would be bad for the stability of our country; it would be bad for the cohesion of this country.

We have been lucky that in the present King, in Queen Elizabeth II, in her father King George VI, in King George V, in Queen Victoria and others, we've had exemplary monarchs who've been committed to serving this country in an important tradition, and I think that has been a wonderful and important aspect of the system of constitutional monarchy in this country.

In great contradistinction to the member for Kennedy, I think another advantage of the monarchy in this country, it's actually one of the huge advantages, is that we share the monarch with a whole range of other countries. In a world that is becoming more international, in a world that is global, I think it's important that we share the Crown with the United Kingdom, with Canada, with New Zealand, with Papua New Guinea, with a whole range of other countries around the world. It brings together a common element, a comity that we have with other peoples—other free peoples—under the Crown in an age that is becoming more nationalistic in a very bad way.

There are many countries in our region that are constitutional monarchies like Japan, like Thailand and many of the Malaysians states. Constitutional monarchies tend to be freer societies. Four of the six of the oldest continuous democracies in the world are constitutional monarchies, including our country, including Canada, including Great Britain.

I think that the monarchy is a great thing. I think we should be proud of it, we should celebrate it and those who seek to replace it should be very careful what they wish for, because there are some significant issues that one needs to address if you are to replace the Crown in this country. What do you do about the Crown at the state level? What do you do about the constitutional conventions, those reserve powers of the Crown. What do you do about the appointment and dismissal of prime ministers? How do you ensure, because I'm not sure you can ensure, that any future president would exercise their powers in the same way in which the constitutional monarchy in Australia has exercised its powers.

The government, I should note, has a very fine man in its midst in the member for Kingsford Smith, but despite the fact he is a fine man, he has this strange title of Assistant Minister for the Republic. One wonders what that title is actually all about and what he is doing, and I note he hasn't spoken on this particular bill either. It seems to be a title without a job and without a role, and I think at the moment the prospect of Australia becoming a republic is further from likely than at any time in our history.

I do commend some aspects of this, but the coalition's position—I will repeat it again—is that when it asked the government if it had consulted the Governor-General on this bill, the coalition was advised that the Prime Minister and the cabinet had no intention of consulting the Governor-General until the bill had reached its royal assent stage. The government wanted to pass the Crown References Amendment Bill without even speaking to the King's representative, the Governor-General. The Prime Minister wanted to pass the Crown References Amendment Bill before speaking to the Crown and, therefore, because of the disrespect to the Crown, the coalition will not be supporting this bill until we have assurances that the government has consulted with the Crown's representative in Australia, the Governor-General.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To sum up this debate, I want to first thank honourable members for their constructive contributions on this debate and for other contributions as well. Following exchanges with those in the opposition, I do seek to provide an assurance regarding oaths and affirmations. The intention of this provision is that the applicable pronoun is determined by the relevant sovereign and not left to the person giving the oath. Therefore, the provisions will operate to require any person taking an oath of affirmation during the reign of King Charles III to refer to His Majesty.

Further, the honourable member for Capricornia sought assurances that our government had consulted with the Governor-General on this bill. Consistent with his constitutional responsibilities, the Governor-General plays an important role in all legislation at the royal assent stage. Accordingly, if this parliament asks the Governor-General to consider this matter, it will be presented to the Governor-General for royal assent in the orthodox manner of legislation covering a whole range of matters being passed on from the parliament to the Governor-General. I note that this is in accordance with the intended operation of section 58 of the Constitution and, further, as every member of this place would know, the King also has a consultation role in section 59 of the Constitution.

I thank the honourable member for Moreton, who spoke of his support for the bill, saying it is needed 'to update our Australian legislation'. Indeed, we need to update this after the sad passing of Queen Elizabeth II. I also note that this was something that we noted at the time of the Queen's passing, that there would be a requirement for legislation to update a range of Commonwealth acts—that was very clearly articulated at the time. At that point in time, it was well understood why the government would do this, and this is in keeping with that commitment.

I note the honourable member for Berowra spoke, and I always enjoy hearing his contributions about the Australian Constitution and about the depth of Australia's relationships with the world. He talked about the need for certainty in an ever-changing world. I would argue to the honourable member and to all in his party room that this continues that strong tradition of accepting the Constitutional arrangements which Australia has, and providing such certainty.

In conclusion, this updates a range of legislation that references Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in various acts of legislation to reflect the accession of a new sovereign. It is with this legislation that the parliament recognises His Majesty King Charles III as the new sovereign and that we pass this legislation to ensure that we bring important updates to references to the sovereign throughout the Australian legislative framework. These changes reflect the end of the second Elizabethan age and the beginning of a new age with our new king, His Majesty King Charles III.

I thank the member for Kennedy for his contributions and his views on currency. It brings us to another important question which I am pleased to update the parliament on: the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has had a range of conversations and, when the King should choose to provide Australia with an official portrait, we are ready to ensure that it is available for all members and senators to provide to their constituents. I will do everything I can to ensure that there is a smooth process, because I know there is great interest in the Australian community not just in this legislation but also in ensuring that where those organisations such as RSLs, local councils and others want the official portrait of King Charles III, they can be provided that by their local member or senator as soon as it is provided to the Australian government.

Question unresolved.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 33