HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

REPUBLIC REFERENDUM

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:31): I move:

That this house calls upon the federal government to act decisively and initiate a referendum relating to Australia becoming a republic and, in particular, one which allows the public to indicate whether they desire a republic and, if so, whether the president should have a symbolic or executive role, or both, and whether the president should be selected by either a joint sitting of the federal parliament, a direct vote or by some other mechanism.

The question of Australia becoming a republic or not has slipped a little bit from the radar. Some people are suggesting that it is not appropriate at this time to consider it because of the global financial crisis. I do not accept that argument. We do not stop doing other things simply because we might be in difficult financial times. A classic argument used by people who do not want any change is to say, 'Not now.' The same argument was used by those who wanted to continue slavery, and keep women in the house and out of the workforce, and so on. It is the classic argument: not now, we cannot afford it and other issues are more pressing. The point is that if something needs to be changed because it is correct then the financial situation at the time should not stop that from happening.

In 1990—and I stand to be corrected on the date—I made a suggestion in this house. I remember that I was sitting next to the Hon. Jennifer Cashmore and we were discussing the question of Australia becoming a republic. I said, 'Why don't we consider what they did in Scandinavia,' where they took members from the existing royal family in one of those countries and, in effect, transplanted them into another Scandinavian country. She said, 'That's an interesting idea. Why don't you stand up and put it?' So I did.

Some members said, 'The member for Fisher is trying to create an Australian royal family.' I guess, in essence, it would be, but I am not now advocating that. The suggestion did not gain support from a wide range of people in the community. Some people did think it was a great idea, but it did not get legs and it did not go anywhere. I did not put forward that suggestion because I am a monarchist—because I am not—but, rather, I put it forward for consideration on the grounds of pragmatism. It has been done in Scandinavian countries and it has worked well there; so it was a pragmatic thing.

Fundamentally, I am a democrat in terms of my commitment to people having a say, and the notion of a monarchy is inconsistent with that.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Didn't you want a royal family in Australia?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The Attorney-General was obviously elsewhere when I just explained that issue. I raised it as a discussion point; the Attorney-General is correct. We raise many ideas. It is called kite flying or flying the flag—whatever you want to call it. That suggestion of 1990 could have happened—it was quite easy to do—but the public did not want it so it did not happen. It is not likely to happen; I cannot see it happening.

I believe that in a democracy the notion of a monarchy is incompatible. What is equally inconsistent is that the head of state is not resident in the country. I think that is an absurdity. None of this is a reflection on Her Majesty The Queen. I think the Queen has been fantastic in her role as head of state, not only in a dignified way but also in a most capable way. I have had the privilege of meeting the Queen; and I guess some other members here have. Early in my time in parliament we had a chance to meet Her Majesty when she was visiting South Australia. I can remember having a conversation with her at the Town Hall. I am sure she has probably forgotten the conversation, but I have not. I will not reveal it here because that is not part of the etiquette associated with talking to the Queen.

In a democracy people should have a head of state who is elected. Importantly, the head of state should be resident in the country. People say that the existing system has served us well, but the world has changed, not simply because we have people from cultures and backgrounds different from the Anglo-Celtic one from which some of us have come. Australia is now recognised as a medium-sized power, a country which has a lot to be proud of. It has achieved a lot and it can achieve even more. The time has come when Australia should become a republic. The question is how? What process should be involved?

I suspect that former prime minister John Howard, who was in charge of the 1999 referendum, deliberately wanted that referendum to fail.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Really?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: It was designed to fail because of the questions that were put to the people. The first one asked whether Australia should become a republic with a president appointed by a parliament—that is, a bipartisan appointment model.

The other question related to altering the constitution to insert a preamble. I will not read all the results but, in effect, as we know, the referendum was not carried because, on my reading, the public felt that it had no real say in it. The public does not want politicians to be selecting the head of state through the federal parliament, and I agree. Some people say, 'Well, if you allow the public to have a say, you could end up with someone who is inappropriate.' I think that is pretty offensive against the judgment of the wider community. We accept their judgment in things such as jury cases and we accept their judgment in other things.

Some people said, 'You might end up with a sportsperson.' Well, that might be the best choice. Just look at our previous governor, Marjorie Jackson-Nelson—an excellent governor and a sporting person. I think there has been some less than helpful discussion about the possibility that the public might select an inappropriate person or that the person might have a sporting or some other background. It does not matter what their background is, as long as it has been constructive and positive; and if that is what the public wants as its head of state then so be it.

I do not accept the argument that it is too complicated or too complex to allow the public to have a say. We know there are various models, and I have just mentioned some. Federal parliament could select the person; I do not favour that. Federal and state parliaments could select the person, the same as in India; or you could have a popular vote which I favour and which is done in the Republic of Ireland. There are, I guess, variations on those themes. You could also have selection, but I do not favour selection by the Prime Minister or by the government and the opposition combined; or you could have selection by a constitutional council, which is sometimes called the McGarvie model.

I think it is time, and I believe that the Labor Party traditionally has been and still is committed to Australia becoming a republic. Mr Rudd, I think, has gone a little coy on the idea, using once again the claim that we have a financial crisis. I do not think that, as a nation, that should stop us taking the step and allowing the people to have a say. That is, of course, asking them, first, whether they want a republic and what sort of role the president should have: should it be essentially symbolic or have some executive function (a little like the US model) or a combination of both? Personally, I prefer a symbolic role with very limited powers of intervention which would be in only extreme situations and which would need to be spelt out.

The people should be asked how that president should be selected, and that is why, as I said earlier, the public rejected the referendum, not because they did not want a republic (because the survey showed by a significant majority that people do), but because they were not allowed to express what they really wanted, that is, to have a real, meaningful say in the selection of a president. Unfortunately, some people in discussing the question of a republic confuse the arrangement with our historical connections. In advocating that we become a republic, I am not in any way denigrating or decrying the British heritage which many of us enjoy.

I have said in here before that my father came from England. He was about as English as you could get. He came from Cheltenham in Gloucestershire, which is even more English than England itself, if that is possible. In our home he always had a portrait of the Queen. He loved England and everything to do with England. To the day he died he was English, and that was his right. If members look at their contribution collectively over time, the British people have done a lot of fantastic things and they have done some bad things, too; but, overall, they have made a fantastic contribution in terms of activities and actions throughout the world.

I am not in any way advocating that we become a republic as some sort of anti-English, anti-British, anti-UK model.

Ms Breuer: Why not?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Someone said, 'Why not?' Because there is no need to go down that path or even to raise it as an issue. The question is: is Australia in 2009 a nation in its own right, independent and able to be seen by the world as having its own residential head of state? I think it is. It does not mean that we must separate ourselves out from the commonwealth. It does not mean that at all. That can continue, and one would hope that it would continue. In essence, as I say, I support Australia becoming a republic.

I know there are people who want to keep going back to 1990 and saying that, because I raised a concept back then (I was not advocating it strongly, or anything), somehow I was an ardent monarchist. I am not an ardent monarchist. I believe in a democracy, and anything which offends people having a say in a democracy I am generally opposed to. The other aspect is, as I say, to allow people to have a say, first, on whether or not they want a republic, what form it should take and how the head of state should be selected. In moving this motion, I believe it is time to get this issue back on the agenda.

The economy, I think, whilst we are going through a rough time, will pick up. I think that we are starting to see early signs of that through the share market. There are some early indications that we are starting to turn the corner but, irrespective of the state of the economy, I think it is time to act on this issue and bring about a choice for the people of this nation. I commend the motion to the house.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:44): I will speak briefly on this matter. My party allows me latitude to vote how we wish on this matter.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Pathetic!

Mr VENNING: The Attorney interjected, 'Pathetic.'

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Yes, that is a fact. I do not know whether the honourable member's party will allow her to do that, but mine does. Anyway, irrespective, the bottom line is that, if my party has a position, I am still able to say, 'Well, I dissent from that.' I can dissent and still survive. As Mr Gunn said during debate on his motion this morning, I think it is everyone's right, irrespective of which party they are a member of, to be able to stand up here, and I am doing that. I have a position on this: I oppose the motion.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Yes, and tell us what it is. Let's forget the preamble—

Mr VENNING: The Attorney-General sits here and derides members. He ought to be an example to everyone, particularly new members of the house. He sits there like a petulant—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You and Terry Norman Stephens are great examples, aren't you.

Mr VENNING: Here we go.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney will—

Mr VENNING: He knows it's not true. He throws his interjections across the chamber—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Terry Norman Stephens.

Mr VENNING: He knows they are not true.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

An honourable member: Chuck him out.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr VENNING: He is just being mischievous and deliberately—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney will fail from interjecting and the member—

An honourable member: Not 'fail'—cease.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Attorney will fail to interject, or cease, and I ask the member for Schubert not to respond, no matter how much provoked.

Mr VENNING: Thank you, madam. I am glad you used the word 'provoked'. That is what he is trying to do. I have no problem in this matter that he raises by interjection. I am happy to go outside the front of the house there and say it all.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: 'Happy to'.

Mr VENNING: I'm happy to—so—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You said it on radio.

Mr VENNING: Well, I will just investigate that to see what can be done, because it is just blatantly not true. Anyway, I do oppose this motion. I heard what the honourable member for Fisher had to say. I remind the member that we had a referendum. There was a rebounding result against it, but the more important thing was that it showed the country could not organise itself into what it wanted. We had all that hoo-ha before. We had the constitutional referendum group and the special meeting in Canberra with the delegates taken from across Australia, at huge cost, and they still could not decide. Malcolm Turnbull, my current leader, was a front-runner in all this. He was making a running for a republic. But look what happened.

I am happy for the member for Fisher, or anyone else, to go away and bring back a proposal to the house, but say exactly how it is going to be and then we will decide it. If you leave it loose like this I am not going to go there, because all that will happen is that we will go through the same exercise again—whether the president (if that is what he is to be called) will be elected or selected and for what period of time. We will go through all that again, and I say to you that the result will be exactly the same.

What we have now works and the system is respected. To change it will cost a lot of money. It is a pretty efficient system, because it does not cost the taxpayer a lot of money. I am not so much a monarchist as a traditionalist, and I believe there are a few things in the country that we should not change just for the sake of changing them. It is just a figurehead position. The Prime Minister is the most powerful person in this country, and we have the Queen as monarch. How often does she interfere with the Prime Minister? Not at all. So, why would you want to mess with it? The Prime Minister is an elected person.

Mrs Geraghty: Nice lady, but she doesn't come and visit often.

Mr VENNING: I am sure she would come to visit more often if we invited her.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr VENNING: The member has not met her. I have met the gracious lady, and she has been a fantastic queen. What she has done, considering her age, I think is inspirational to us all. I think she has shown great poise. Anyway, irrespective of that—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You did but see her passing by—

Mr VENNING: I did.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: —and yet you'll love her til you die.

Mr VENNING: Absolutely. I agree absolutely with the Attorney-General. She came to the Barossa and visited the rose garden. She walked with my good friend, the late Herman Thumm, who died just a couple of weeks ago. I am in awe of a person like that and also, indeed, the royal family. Irrespective of that, it has to work for Australia.

Members interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I am just saying that, with respect to a republic, we will no doubt go there, but if a loose motion like this is put before us and we go through all this again I will never support it, unless the specific details are provided as to whether a president will be elected or selected. That goes round and round and round. I do not want a situation like they have in America, where the presidential election lasts for probably two years. When you visit the country it drives you nuts. How would you like to live there with that? And who could ever be the President of the United States? Only the extremely wealthy and the elite. How could the ordinary day-to-day person hope to achieve that? Could Kevin Rudd ever be the President of Australia? I would hope not. At the moment our Prime Minister, the Hon. Kevin Rudd—

Ms Breuer interjecting:

Mr VENNING: If the member for Giles would shut up for a second we might be able to conclude the debate and move on. Our Prime Minister, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, is a republican. There is no shame in that. He recommends the appointment of the Governor-General, which he is doing, and it works—as did the Hon. Bill Hayden before him. He even ended up as the Governor-General, and he was a republican. We have all these theories, but we have had this referendum. How long before we should have another one? I would say 20 or 25 years.

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

Mr VENNING: The member for Fisher says that we did not ask the question. He is dead right. You work out the question to be asked via your motion. Do not bring a mealy mouthed, wide open motion like this in here, because we will go straight back there again. Put down your definite ideas and exactly what you want and how you think it will work and then it might receive some support. We do not want to go there again. We have been there, at a huge cost, and it was a waste of time. It frustrates and confuses the population and they will do what they did last time and vote it out, and I will too.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT