Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be no surprise for anyone to hear that the opposition will be supporting the Succession to the Crown Bill 2015. In fact, it was at the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, in Perth, that the Labor government supported the British government's move to amend the succession laws of the Commonwealth to better reflect the values of our time.

In 2013 the British government passed their own Succession to the Crown Act. Once the 16 Commonwealth nations still tied to the British monarchy have implemented their own domestic legislation, the British legislation will become law.

In Australia's case, each of the states needed to pass its own legislation requesting the federal government to legislate on behalf of the whole country. All the states have now passed their legislation, and this bill completes that process. We are in fact the only Commonwealth country left to do so, apart from a constitutional challenge against the Canadian legislation.

There are three changes in this bill which amend the current arrangements. They are, firstly, the abolition of the succession rule which stated that a man precedes his sister in succession to the throne even if she is the elder sibling; secondly, the removal of the rule disqualifying a person from the line of succession if a person marries a Roman Catholic—the monarch must still be an Anglican, which is maintained in the Act of Settlement—and, thirdly, the abolishment of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which has the effect of the monarch not needing to consent to the marriages of descendants of King George the Second. There are hundreds of people in this category. Under the new arrangements, the monarch's consent is only required for the first six people in line to the throne. The consent is only needed when dealing with royal succession and does not invalidate any marriage itself.

Now Labor's position on Australia becoming a republic is very clear. The opposition believe the people of Australia should have a say in how their country is governed, which includes the ability to have an Australian head of state. The fact we need to even deal with this type of bill sends the message that the current monarchy's value system has been out of touch with modern Australia for a very long time.

All Australians should aspire to serve our country at every level, including as our head of state. We are a country with an egalitarian ethos, that believes the criteria for public service should be hard work, integrity and ability, not privilege of birth. Indeed, the very structure of this Senate reflects that—a fully elected upper house is a statement in itself.

Labor welcomes changes to these succession laws as it brings the British monarchy in line with modern values and expectations. We would indeed welcome, one day, having an Australian head of state.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Succession to the Crown Bill 2015, but I could not say that I agree with the parliamentary secretary's second reading speech when he said, 'It aligns the royal succession laws with modern values.' If anything that is a total oxymoron. For goodness sake, of course we should be in a situation where if you wish to maintain the monarchy, if you wish to maintain succession of privilege and wealth by virtue of who you are born to and in which country, well then, yes, absolutely, that girls should be able to take on the role and should not be bypassed in favour of a brother, an uncle or somebody else.

But here we are so late behind the eight ball, with Catherine about to have her baby in the UK. Why is Australia lagging behind? It is because of Queensland. This is how ridiculously backward this country has become—Campbell Newman refused when COAG got together to say, 'Let's give this the big tick.' This was actually put forward before Prince William had his first child, but Queensland held it up, and why? Queensland say that they, like every other state, have a personal and direct relationship with the royal family and it will not be subjugated to a national point of view.

So in Australia we have this ridiculous proposition maintained that we are so enamoured of the monarchy that every state has its own governor, who is effectively the viceroy who has the personal relationship with the British monarchy and that is why they will reserve the right to decide. Not only did Campbell Newman hold this up, the former Premier of Queensland; of course, he went backwards and took down the new coat of arms that Queensland had developed and restored the former coat of arms for Queensland.

Australia is a modern country. I am really proud of this nation and we should have our own head of state. It is a complete nonsense that we are still deferring to the British royal family. The British royal family themselves think it is ridiculous. At the end of her to Diamond Jubilee year, the Queen said she understands where Australia sits in relation to the end of British Empire. It would be an enormous relief to her if we finally stood up for ourselves, I am sure. How ridiculous would we have looked had the referendum for Scotland had succeeded. We would have looked so stupid—there was Scotland, an independent country, and Australia still with its apron strings attached to the monarchy. It would have looked utterly ridiculous. Where would we have been with our flag and everything else at that point? It all would have had to have been changed if Scotland had to be taken off.

At some point we need to stand up. At some point, Australia must affirm itself is a modern, independent nation that can have its own national identity and values and our own head of state. Times have changed. Australia has changed. The Queen realises Australia has changed. That does not mean that Australians do not have enormous affection for the royal family. They do. That is not the point. The point is we should be a republic. We should have our own head of state. We should be getting on with it. It is a national embarrassment that Queensland, under Campbell Newman, have left us in this invidious position. I support the change to these succession. I support it in terms of women being able to take their place but in a broader context. This is not a debate the Australian parliament should be having in 2015. The debate we should be having is: Australia, the republic; the strong, independent nation in the world.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to support the Succession of the Crown Bill 2015 and I could not be at more variance than the previous speaker. In doing so, I make the observation that we are all witnessing firsthand the peaceful evolution of our constitutional customs and traditions, specifically to reform the historic rules of succession to the Crown in Australia. This modernisation of the laws of succession ensures the continued relevance of constitutional monarchy to Australia and its people, and reflects that commitment that all that all Australians have to equality and nondiscrimination.

We are proud today to be changing the laws of royal succession to reflect modern Australian values. This reform allows the Crown to better reflect our contemporary values while preserving the traditions of our constitutional monarchy. The rules of succession to the Crown have included two discriminatory provisions: firstly, that male siblings take precedence over female siblings, regardless of age; and, secondly, that a person may not marry a Roman Catholic and remain in line to assuming the Crown.

The historical context is critical if we are to properly understand the significance of the reforms. The rules of succession to the Crown derived from the Bill of Rights of 1689, the Act of Settlement of 1700 and the common law. They were designed to secure the Protestant succession and to prevent alliances with Catholic states and continental Europe as well as to further assert and entrench parliament's constitutional supremacy. They were born of political and religious strife of various historical periods. The combined effect was to secure the freedoms and status of parliament against the possibility of monarchical absolutism. It is valuable to acknowledge the supremacy of parliament in determining matters of succession to the Crown.

The reforms we are agreeing today have their genesis in the historic agreement reached in Perth at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in October 2011, where it was agreed that each of 16 Commonwealth nations of whom Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is head of state would the rules governing succession to their respective crowns. The agreement reached was to end male preference primogeniture where a younger son could displace an elder daughter in line of succession, to remove the legal provision that anyone who marries a Roman Catholic shall be ineligible to the Crown and to remove the general requirement for descendants of His Late Majesty George II to seek the sovereign's consent to marry.

This bill matches similar bills passed by each of the 16 realms of which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is head of state. In that vein it is worth noting the uniqueness of the Australian context. Our form follows from request and consent acts which have been passed by each of the six state parliaments over the last several months. The Commonwealth, states and territories and the Council of Australian Governments agreed to the reforms in July 2012 and agreed in April 2013 to implement them using a legislated consent and request approach relying on section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution. Under this approach each of the states pass legislation requesting that the Commonwealth enact legislation for the whole of Australia. All states' legislation needs to commence before the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia can enact the Commonwealth legislation. I note here that all states' legislation has now been commenced. The parliament of my home state of Western Australia was the last of the state parliaments to consider this matter and did it just recently. This approach befits the nature of our federation in that this manner of change should be cooperative rather than through imposition of a law made by the federal parliament which may later lead to legal doubt.

It is timely to reflect on the issue of gender and the Crown given that some of the greatest occupants of the throne have in fact been women: Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria and our current sovereign, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The last two, of course, have been ever present in the birth and subsequent history of our modern Commonwealth. It was Queen Victoria who signed the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 and witnessed Federation on 1 January 1901 before her own death just 21 days later. And we can but be in awe of the tremendous service beyond self and conspicuous grace exhibited by our current sovereign since her accession to the throne in February 1952.

It should be acknowledged that the passage of this bill is taking place as we progress toward the anniversary and, I would hope, celebration of a most remarkable historical achievement. The two longest serving monarchs in the history of our crown have been women: Queen Victoria having been monarch for 63 years, seven months and two days; and Queen Elizabeth II, who in September this year with God's grace will pass her great-grandmother's record as the longest reigning monarch ever. Few will be surprised to hear me remark favourably and with thanks on the good fortune endured during this sovereign's reign—a reign marked by steadfastness and fierce political neutrality. The very fact that our democracy is one of the longest existing democracies in the world is a testament to the fact that the sinews of our system of government do not break under strain. They are supple and they flex to take account of modern needs.

I think it is important to give due recognition to the role played in these changes by two people in particular. The former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown was in many ways a significant driving force behind these changes. He told the House of Commons in 2009:

There are clearly issues about the exclusion of people from the rights of succession and there are clearly issues that have got to be dealt with. This is not an easy set of answers.

But I think in the 21st Century people do expect discrimination to be removed and they do expect us to be looking at all these issues.

The other figure I wish to recognise in playing a significant role is—and I do this genuinely and graciously—the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who rightly said that just because the changes appear simple '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. In many respects, by supporting this bill today we are active contributors to a reform we will likely never witness.

In conclusion, I reflect on the value of constitutional monarchy in Australia. I would like to quote from The Australian, no less, in its editorial noting the diamond jubilee of our current sovereign. It said:

As Queen, Elizabeth's skills in transcending politics while counselling to 12 British prime ministers, from Winston Churchill to David Cameron, and presiding over an often fractious Commonwealth have demonstrated the stable benefits of constitutional monarchy. In more capricious hands the story might have been very different. While remaining apolitical, the Queen's advocacy of tolerance and social cohesion and support for those who are suffering has made her an influence for good.

Finally, of course, the comments of the very eminent Australian, esteemed jurist Michael Kirby:

The countries of the world that tend to be the most liberal, secular and tolerant happen to be constitutional monarchies: the UK, Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain. That may be just an accident, but I doubt it. The system puts in place a person whose life must be one of service. As well, it avoids the head of state problem: leaders who get carried away with their own importance. It keeps out of the top jobs rather unlovely characters. The constitutional monarchy is a core principle in the Australian Constitution.

All senators who support this bill can be justly proud of playing a small part in this unique but historical piece of constitutional evolution.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also support this bill and was not intending to add to the very fine contributions by the minister moving it and by Senator Smith, but Senator Milne's comment about the flag has encouraged me to make a small contribution in the form of a poem:

Our flag bears the stars that blaze at night,

In our southern sky of blue,

And a little old flag in the corner

That's part of our heritage too.

It's for the English, the Scots and the Irish

Who were sent to the ends of the earth,

The rogues and schemers, the doers and dreamers

Who gave modern Australia birth.

And you, who are shouting to change it,

You don't seem to understand,

It's the flag of our law and our language

Not the flag of a faraway land.

(Though there are plenty of people who'll tell you,

How when Europe was plunged into night,

That little old flag in the corner

Was their symbol of freedom and light.)

It doesn't mean we owe allegiance

To a forgotten imperial dream;

We've the stars to show where we're going.

And the old flag to show where we've been.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The details of the Succession to the Crown Bill are well known and have been outlined by my colleagues who have spoken before me today. It ends male preference primogeniture in the right to the throne, it lifts the long prohibition on marrying Catholics for those in the line of succession and it limits the need for permission from the sovereign for the first six in line to the throne when they seek to marry, as well as validating some past marriages. It is important to note the process by which this bill has come to the parliament. I note that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister in the other place outlined that from his research this was only the third time in the Commonwealth's history that this particular provision of the Constitution—section 51(xxxviii)—had been used, with the other examples being the Australia Act 1986 and, of all things, the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act of several decades ago.

Senator Smith outlined a very important principle that this act reflects and that has been the case since the 17th century. This act reflects the principle of parliamentary democratic sovereignty over the right to the throne. However, I will note that it does have a contrast with one of the elements of our own constitution, in section 116, which does guarantee freedom of religion and prevents the Commonwealth establishing a religious test for any public office or in fact a state religion. I do want to turn to some of the history of that, as well as our other constitutional arrangements, because they are relevant to this debate and I note that they have been brought up by many of those opposite in this chamber and also in the other place. This bill provokes a discussion of these issues.

Many have raised the issue of a republic—we have heard that here this morning. In the other place someone described Australia as a dominion. The important point about our history, and this goes to the way our nation was formed, is that Australia never described itself as a dominion—it was always a Commonwealth. When the constitutional drafters took the agreed bill to London for passage through the UK parliament, the very terminology 'Commonwealth of Australia' raised certain eyebrows because of its connotations with historical events in England. Too often the republican movement in Australia mistakes nationalism for republicanism. I hasten to mention that I say this with a different world view from my colleague Senator Smith—I have been a republican for as long as I can remember. But a republic is not just about the head of state—it is about a form of government. It is about a form of government where one is as concerned with the tyranny of the majority as it is with reflecting it through democratic means. In fact, one of the first outlines of a modern republic by Montesquieu defined the British system of government at the time as a perfect republic—a crowned republic with three separate, distinct sources of authority through the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Too often republicans in Australia are solely nationalists. We hear the cry 'an Australian for head of state' but we do not have any discussion about the role this person will play or the manner by which we choose them.

Most of the arguments of many of those proposing change in the 1999 referendum, which I opposed, could have simply been addressed by the legislation for an Australian monarchy. The cry over and over again was 'a mate for head of state' or 'an Australian for head of state'. Some of the ill-founded attacks by some republicans on direct-election republicans during that campaign, and which occasionally get reflected in these debates, are based on this misunderstanding of republicanism. Whether they were from a Labor tradition like Clem Jones or a more conservative tradition like Paddy O'Brien, their commitment to republicanism was about a form of government. That is a very important thing to understand when we look at how our Constitution was formed. In particular, when we look at the features of our republican constitution that we have here, we have an independent court that has the power to rule acts of this parliament invalid; we have this very chamber—one of the most powerful upper houses in the world and the most powerful upper chamber in any Westminster parliament; we have a written constitution; and we have sovereignty guaranteed at the Commonwealth and state levels. The 1999 referendum weakened proposal the power of this chamber quite dramatically, and I think it was during a condolence debate in the other place on the passing of former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam that my colleague and friend the member for Wentworth, who was the leader of the Yes campaign in 1999, conceded that one of the impacts of the 1999 referendum being passed would have been the effective removal of the power of the Senate to block supply. That was never explicitly outlined, but it profoundly weakened one of the key republican elements of our federal Constitution.

Our process of federation was a unique one. It is one that we can and should be proud of and indeed I am. Our federation was made by many forgotten republicans whose values were incorporated into the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia. On many occasions Australia has been referred to as a crowned republic because of the strong republican elements in our Constitution. By any test we are a federal republic through the outline of the institutions I have just mentioned—the Senate, the states, the written constitution, the strong courts and guaranteed judicial independence. What I find odd is that so many of those voices who claim to be republicans so often complain about these very same features of our Constitution. Look at the single most important part of our Constitution, which is section 128—the referendum power. Unlike virtually every other formation of a democratic nation, the power to change the constitution was not given to politicians, it was not given to elected assemblies, it was not given to stacked assemblies of people who were chosen because they held a view—it was given solely to the people of this country. Too often those proposing change who then bleat about the failure of referendums have failed to understand that sense of public ownership over our Constitution. I have never understood how so-called democrats—Senator Milne reflected an attitude like this, complaining about the state of our constitutional arrangements in her speech earlier—can complain about the result of a referendum. We have given the people a choice. Of the 36 referendums that have failed, 34 of them have failed on a national level. Only two failed because they only succeeded in three states, not four, but still had a national majority. On the overwhelming number of occasions the people have chosen to not change the constitution it has been by a strong national majority.

Too often the language of people who want change does not reflect a commitment to the arrangements that were set up by the people who drafted our Constitution. That is true whether the proposed change is about our head of state or whether it is, as it always seems to be, about granting more power to this place—sadly it never seems to be about reducing that power. Yes, the people who drafted our Constitution were all male. It was not a perfect process when judged by the standards of today, but it was the most democratic constitutional convention, election, drafting and consent process the world has ever seen. It was remarkable in the late 19th century for there to have been universal male suffrage—with female suffrage in one colony and with, in some colonies, some of our Indigenous people having the right to vote in the referendum to form the Commonwealth.

Let us not blame the founding fathers for the actions of this parliament in 1902 in stripping away the right of Indigenous Australians to vote. I remind people again that, when they go out to a school and answer a question—saying that Australia in 1902 was the second country in the world to give women the vote—they should be honest and also say that that same act of this parliament took the vote away from Indigenous people. It was not a flaw in the Constitution; it was not an act of the founding fathers; it was an action of those elected to the First Parliament. That should be a reminder to us here that what we think might be the right thing on any given day may, with the turn of history, be seen very differently in the future. It is a good reminder to us to be a little bit humble when acting based on the attitudes of today.

Whether it is about the issue of a head of state, whether it is about the issue of the powers and forms of the Commonwealth, or whether it is about giving Indigenous Australians a special place in the Constitution, those proposing change have only ever been successful when they have had more than just bipartisanship. There have been plenty of bipartisan referenda that have failed. In 1967, on the same day that 91 per cent of Australians voted to give this parliament power over the affairs of Indigenous Australians and to delete section 127 of the Constitution, a technical amendment that would have weakened the power of the Senate—the so-called 'nexus' clause—was voted down. This was an amendment that had the support of both major parties. That happened on the same day, on the same ballot paper. It shows you the degree of engagement Australians have when they consider referendum proposals put forward by the Commonwealth. I say to those who, in this debate, have expressed concerns about our current constitutional arrangements: any change will only occur as a product of engagement with the Australian people and, thankfully—due to the referendum power—with their consent.

Too often the strengths and the historical achievements of our Federation process are forgotten. The other night when I was at the Victorian state parliament, I had the chance to read the charter of the Ballarat Reform League. The language of the Ballarat Reform League is quite amazing. It bears a remarkable resemblance to the language of the American colonists prior to 1776. It talks about a wish not to separate from the mother colony, it talks about the need for democracy and it talks about the need for regularly elected parliaments and universal—in this case male—suffrage. Those ideas from Gold Rush era Victoria eventually ended up incorporated into our Constitution. We invented the secret ballot at what is now a pub over the road from the Victorian state parliament. South Australia came up with a way to develop electoral rolls which much of the world now uses. Our process guaranteed a level of democratic involvement that is the envy of the world. It should not be impugned because people make judgements about the past.

As I often like to remind this chamber, there was indeed one Labor delegate at the last federal constitutional convention—and that Labor delegate voted no. The process of forming this country involved a debate amongst different strains of 19th century liberals and liberalism. That is the philosophy that formed this country. Not only does the bill we are dealing with today reflect the attitudes they had about guaranteeing parliamentary sovereignty, but the fact we can have this debate—and we have constitutional debates at regular intervals—is a sign of how successful they were at ensuring that the people own our Constitution. It is our job to convince the people, not to lecture them.

Before I commend the bill to the Senate, I would like to correct a couple of comments made by earlier speakers in this debate. The reason our states have roles that are different from those of states and provinces in other Commonwealth countries is that in Australia we have a unique arrangement where the states have their own relationship with the Crown. That is unlike Canada in particular. There is a very good book on this by Anne Twomey—The Chameleon Crown. Senator Milne might like to read it. It reflects our history and it goes through the development of the Australia Act in 1986—and it highlights a very important constitutional principle. For federalists like myself, that principle means that, when things that I do not like are happening under a Labor government in my home state—and I am sure Senator Carr or Senator Milne could think of some examples—I still do not seek to interfere from here. I was not elected for that purpose. I suggest that those who criticise the fact that our states have autonomy and their own sovereignty ought to think more broadly. It is easier to follow that principle when people you agree with are in power; the hard bit is when you disagree with them.

Senator Milne also raised the issue of Scotland and the referendum there. As far as I am aware, the proponents of the yes vote in that campaign—who did not succeed in breaking up the union—made it very clear that they were going to maintain their links with the British monarchy. They were going to make it, effectively, a Scottish monarchy—in the same way that there is an Australian monarchy and a New Zealand monarchy. I thought it important to correct the record on that. The referendum in Scotland in fact had no relationship with whether or not Scotland was going to be a republic. It was about its arrangements as part of Great Britain—but maintaining its relationship with the monarchy. That said, I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.