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 PLEBISCITE

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:52): I move:

That this house calls upon the state government to consult the people of South Australia, via a plebiscite at the time of the next state election, as to whether or not they support Australia becoming a republic, and if Australia becomes a republic what connection, if any, South Australia should maintain with the Crown.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You have nothing to do, and all day in which to do it.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The Attorney, who—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Did you respond to that interjection? I hope you did. I will repeat it if you like.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The Attorney, who is meant to be the chief law maker in this state, is scared that his workload might increase because, as we know, he opens his own mail, I read, and if he delegated that task he would have time to consider the motion that I am putting to the house.

The member for Schubert was talking about the federal referendum costing a lot of money. It does not cost a lot. I am talking about a plebiscite at the time of the next state election, which would cost very little. It is an opportunity to ask the people of South Australia, if Australia becomes a republic, what connection, if any, South Australia should maintain with the Crown. The Attorney-General is much more learned in the law than I am or am ever likely to be, but it is not an automatic thing if Australia became a republic that South Australia should automatically cease connection with the Crown.

The Attorney might, after he has opened his mail, be able to reflect on this issue and give us a considered view about the ramifications of Australia's becoming a republic and how that would necessarily impact on South Australia, for example, the role of Governor and so on. That is what I am asking here. The reading I have done on this subject—and the Attorney says I have all day to think about issues—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Nothing to do and all day in which to do it.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: That is not true. I have a lot to do. The electors whom I represent make the judgment about whether or not I represent them, and I remind the Attorney that at the last election I got more votes than Labor and Liberal combined so, presumably, I am doing something that they agree with.

As I say, this issue dovetails with the earlier motion and relates specifically to the arrangement that would follow if Australia became a republic. We have been well served by governors over time, I think. We are well served at the moment by His Excellency, and that goes back over the governors that I have had the privilege of having dealings with. But it does not avoid or negate the fact that there would be a legal issue in relation to Australia's becoming a republic and whether that would automatically mean that South Australia, which is a state with certain powers and entitlements, would continue to have a relationship with the Crown. That is the substance of the plebiscite.

The Attorney might think that as members of parliament all we need to do is come in here and vote like sheep. That is not how—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No; I have never said or thought anything like that.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I said you may think that.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Well, I don't.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: That is reassuring to hear, because I would be interested to know what the Attorney thinks our role is in here if it is not to put forward ideas. I remember the former member of parliament Robin Millhouse saying we are not only in parliament to represent but also to lead and provide ideas—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I have prayed for you already this morning.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: —and to extend the boundaries.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I am not in the least intimidated by the Attorney suggesting that perhaps if we all remain silent that might be a good thing.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I didn't say that, either.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I did not say you did. I said you may feel it would be best if we remained silent, but, while I am in here, I will continue to challenge the boundaries and to raise issues, and I can tell the house that I do not have any of my electors contacting me to say, 'Don't keep raising issues.' Some things I get right and some things I may get wrong, but it is my job representing people in an electorate—which is above average in educational standard and occupational status—to raise issues that they themselves want canvassed. That is my job, and I make no apology for that.

For that reason, I make a lot of submissions to federal inquiries and others on all sorts of issues—men's and women's health, and a whole range of things—and I will continue to do it. I will continue to do it via this parliament, because this parliament, even though it is dominated by the executive, is actually meant to be a forum to represent the people of South Australia, and that is what I will use it for.

Getting back to this motion, I commend it to the house and ask members to consider the implications of Australia's becoming a republic, how that would or should impact on South Australia and what should be the reaction and the response of the people of South Australia to that.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (11:58): I want to respond to the member for Fisher's remarks. In 1999 I voted yes in the referendum for a republic, and I organised the handing out of the how-to-vote card at all the polling booths in my state district. However, unlike the member for Fisher, I accept the result of the referendum and I am not going to introduce republicanism by stealth.

Republicanism will happen in Australia when the Australian people vote for it, and I am not, as Attorney-General, going to accept the member for Fisher's invitation—and the invitation of others, including the judiciary—to republicanise our constitution, statute book and customs and practices until such time as the Australian people and the South Australian people have voted for it.

The member for Fisher says he is a democrat, but he obviously does not accept the 1999 referendum result. I do.

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Oh, it's a stitch. The Australian people, according to the member for Fisher, were suffering from collective false consciousness when they did not vote yes at the referendum. I was one of the people who voted yes. I lost the referendum. I accept it. I will do what the member for Fisher wants when the Australian people vote for it.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:00): I agree with the Attorney-General in everything that he said—I think that is the first time that I have ever said that. The Attorney said it exactly right, the decision was made. Until such time as there is a movement towards it, you leave it be. My own personal point of view is that it is quite wrong to thrust this issue into a state election.

I would like to see other issues at a referendum at the next election. We should never waste the opportunity to ask questions of the electors when they are going to the polls, and it might encourage more people to think about what they are doing there, but I would certainly not support this. Again, I think the Attorney-General said it all.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

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