Constitutional Monarchy

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.37]: Before lunch I had almost concluded my speech in support of the motion moved by the Hon. J. M. Samios. I reject particularly the third paragraph of the amendment moved by the Hon. R. D. Dyer on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, in which he said he believes that republican sentiment has grown to such an extent that the majority of Australians desire Australia to become a republic. I believe that the majority of Australians wish to retain both our constitutional monarchy and Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, as Head of State. We certainly do not want to see repeated in Australia what has happened in Italy. That country has no president and no prime minister; the republic is in a shambles. In summary, I support the constitutional monarchy, particularly of Queen Elizabeth the Second. She embodies our Christian heritage. She has promised to uphold the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel. The Queen embodies our democratic Westminster system of Parliament with its checks and balances. As is stated in the Federal Constitution, all States have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown. Section 2 of the Federal Constitution states:

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

Therefore, the Queen, as Head of our State, is a vital part of both the Federal and State Constitutions. Section 1 of the Federal Constitution reads:

The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament," or "The Parliament of the Commonwealth".

Page 3764

A similar provision appears in the New South Wales Constitution Act 1902, which reads:

"The Legislature" means His Majesty the King with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council of New South Wales and the Legislative Assembly.

This House is the Legislative Council, the other place is the Legislative Assembly. The Queen unifies our nation. She is an essential to maintaining our unity particularly having regard to many different cultures represented in our society. We do not want the divisions, the hatred, and the bloodshed that is evident in Europe - in the former nation of Yugoslavia, for example. That should never occur in the nation of Australia. The Queen provides the continuity of history and culture. The constitutional monarchy is a vital part of our Westminster parliamentary system which maintains, preserves and protects our democratic freedoms. I conclude my remarks with words from what used to be called our national anthem, which I now call our national hymn:

God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen,
Send her victorious,
happy and glorious,
long to reign over us:
God save the Queen.

The second verse, which, though I understand was written hundreds of years ago, could have been written today, reads:

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies,
and make them fall;
confound their politics,
frustrate their knavish tricks,
on thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all.

The third verse reads:

Thy choicest gifts in store
on her be pleased to pour;
long may she reign;
may she defend our laws,
and ever give us cause
to sing with heart and voice,
"God save the Queen."

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN [2.41]: Today I feel it incumbent on me to explain why I was one of two members of this House who did not attend the opening of Parliament by the Queen. There is certainly ground to argue that attending the opening of Parliament is part of a parliamentarian's duties; it is certainly true that it would generally be considered part of one's work. However, I believe that part of my work also is representing the people of New South Wales who voted me into this position in Parliament. At the time of the Queen's visit on 20th February, 1992, 52 per cent of Australians - and that includes 52 per cent of the people of New South Wales - opposed the fact that she is Queen of Australia. Therefore, I was representing the 52 per cent of the people of New South Wales who believe that Queen Elizabeth the Second should not be Queen of Australia. I was in fact working when I refused to attend Parliament. It is interesting to note that since the Queen visited here in February the percentage of Australians who oppose her as our Head of State has increased from 52 per cent to 57
Page 3765
per cent. I hope she comes to visit us more and more. If the disapproval rate increases by 5 per cent every time she visits, Australia will soon be a republic. It is anachronistic for the Australian Head of State to be the British monarch. The main problem with the British monarch is not so much that it is British but that it is an inherited position. The present incumbent of that position has done nothing to earn her title. She has not displayed great talent; she has not great beauty; she has not great learning -

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: On a point of order. In my view the honourable member is reflecting on the monarchy and, therefore, is in breach of standing orders.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: On the point of order. I was not reflecting on the monarchy, I was reflecting on the position of the monarch.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I draw the attention of the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann and the House generally to Standing Order 79, which states:

No member shall use Her Majesty's or the Governor's name irreverently in debate, nor for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations.

I do not believe the honourable member has thus far transgressed that standing order. Therefore, no point of order is involved but I would ask the honourable member to take care.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: With regard to inherited positions - and I do not wish to reflect upon the present monarch - there is an old saying in political science that the House of Lords is the most democratic House in the world because to be in it you do not need learning, brilliance or great wealth, you simply need to be born. At least the members of the upper House in New South Wales are democratically elected because of progressive Labor reform. I have had a lot of trouble trying to explain to my six-year-old son the concept of an inherited title. When my son saw the Queen on television he said to me, "Who is she?". I said, "It is the Queen". He said, "Why is she the Queen?" I said, "Because her father was the King". He said, "Why was he the King?" I had to say, "Because his father was the King". I was rewarded with a very puzzled look from my son.

[Interruption]

As the Hon. Ann Symonds has pointed out I should have said, "Because his brother ran away with a divorced woman". I found it extremely difficult to explain to a six-year-old child the concept that someone could be in a position of privilege and power merely because of the fact that she was born. To have the British monarch as Queen of Australia is a real problem in today's multicultural society. There are three groups of people who find -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Britain is a multicultural society too.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: And many of her citizens object to the Queen too. I remind honourable members of the republican polls in Britain lately. There are three groups of people in Australia especially who find the concept of a British monarch as our Head of State problematical, to say the least. The first group is, of course, Aboriginal Australians. Their land was stolen from them in the name of Queen Elizabeth the Second's forebears. They have a real problem with the fact that -

Page 3766

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Aborigines respect the Queen.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Absolute rubbish! The Aboriginal people of Australia today are strong in their republican sentiments. They know perfectly well what flag they would like for Australia, and it is not the one honourable members on the Government side of the House have sticking at peculiar angles from their seats. The flag that they would like for Australia today - and I would suggest it would be a good flag for Australia as it is very beautiful - is the Land Rights flag.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I thought you would want to change the flag.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Of course I want to change the flag. I want to change it to the Land Rights flag. The second group of people, and there is a large number of them in the Chamber today, who object to the British monarch being the Australian Head of State are Australians of Irish descent.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member is entitled to be heard.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: The Irish have had a long history of rule from Britain which, from time to time, they have tried to throw off. The present troubles in Ireland are a direct result of the people in Northern Ireland believing that they should not be governed by the British. The third group that are offended by a British monarch being Head of State in Australia are people with non-Anglo Saxon or non-Anglo Celtic backgrounds. It is interesting to note that the last census revealed that the majority religion in Australia today is Catholicism.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It has been since 1981.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: What the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti says makes what I say even more important. It means that for a long time Anglicanism has not ruled, okay. My old friend Nick Greiner, whom I have known for 25 years, is a Catholic. Under the archaic laws which govern the British monarchy, a Catholic can never accede to the throne of England. That means that our Australian Head of State is not representative of our majority religion.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The majority religion is Protestant. Catholics are a minority. About 50 per cent of the population are Anglicans and Protestants.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile would have a lot of trouble convincing the Presbyterians and the Uniting Church that they are of the same religion.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: We have had two Jewish heads of state in this country as Governors-General.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is absolutely wrong. Has he not worked out that our Head of State is the Queen of England? The Governor-General is not our Head of State, although I would not mind if he were. The Head of State is the Queen of England. Another argument from those who believe that the Queen of England should be our Head of State is that thereby Australia's democracy is protected. We are prevented from electing a mistake as a president. How can that argument be sustained having regard to those who have been elected as President of the United States? The Americans elected Ronald Reagan as President. It is
Page 3767
patronising to say that the British are more likely to get it right by some form of Darwinian selection than Australians are by voting for a Head of State in a democratic manner. The Queen has enormous powers under our Constitution - three in particular. First, she has the power to appoint, instruct and remove the Governor-General under section 2 of the Constitution. Second, she has the power to approve or disapprove legislation reserved by the Governor-General for her pleasure under sections 58 and 60 of the Constitution. Third, she has the power to override the approval of the Governor-General and annul a law validly enacted up to one year previously under section 59 of the Constitution. I wish to quote a point made by Malcolm Turnbull.

[Interruption]

I thought Malcolm Turnbull was a Liberal supporter. I do not know why Government members carry on in such a way when I mention his name. Malcolm Turnbull said the following of section 59 of the Constitution:

I should note that this third power (under section 59) is by no means of academic interest only. The Keating Government could, for example, propose legislation which is approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as the Governor General. The new law could be proclaimed and enforced throughout the Commonwealth. A Hewson government could be elected a year later but without the control of the Senate. Mr Hewson could advise his Queen to exercise her power under section 59 and annul a law by Royal decree which he lacked the parliamentary support to do by conventional means.

Government members could say that that would never happen, but I remind them of the assurance that what happened in 1975 would not happen. It did. We were told that the reserve powers would never be used in that way.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It was a peaceful coup.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: It was a coup. If a person were to try to count the number of countries which have perfectly normal governments, and whose Head of State is elected, he would run out of fingers. There is America, Germany, Italy, France -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They are all in turmoil at present.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: And would the problems all be solved if there were a king? The most telling point about the way ordinary Australians feel about the matter is what happened on talkback programs the day after the infamous Botham and Gooch walkout and Botham's subsequent duck the next day in the World Cup. Honourable members should always listen to talkback programs. That is when ordinary Australians have their say. The entire audience of John Laws and Alan Jones admitted that they supported Pakistan in the World Cup. Boofheads like Ian Botham, instead of helping are damaging our relationship with Britain - not to mention our own boofheads. I shall not name names and I am certainly not calling anyone a boofhead.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Does the honourable member support female impersonators? That was the reason they walked out; a female impersonator insulted their Queen.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: The Hon. Elaine Nile and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile might find it interesting that, in an informal way, I have been listening to the comments that people make as they walk past the Queen's portrait that
Page 3768
was unveiled on the day of her visit. Most comments are to this effect: "Gee, doesn't she look like Gerry Connolly". One onlooker said, "It does not look at all like Paul Keating". On the subject of monarchist boofheads, it is interesting that after the significant act of the Hon. Ann Symonds and me in refusing to attend the opening of Parliament a number of conservative members of Parliament, including Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, called for us to be charged for treason. I am told that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour called for the Hon. Ann Symonds and me to be tried for treason and imprisoned in the tower. Those sorts of comments bring the debate about the monarchy into the medieval era, which is probably where it belongs.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Were those comments as frivolous as the remarks of the honourable member about the Queen's portrait?

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: It does look a bit like Gerry Connolly. I conclude with a quote from the late and great Willie Hamilton of whom many honourable members may not have heard. This Scottish gentleman was a member of the British Parliament for more than 25 years. When asked about the Queen, he said:

I have nothing against the Queen personally. I think she's probably a very nice lady - I just think she should be retrained as a steno typist and put to useful work.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN [3.0]: Let me commence my contribution to this debate with a quote that was also used by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe from Sir Robert Menzies' book Afternoon Light:

The creation of a republic does not make complete independence more independent. Why should people think it does?

Australia is completely independent in every sense. Nowhere in the world will an Australian be mistaken for a citizen of the United Kingdom or any other country. Australia is recognised and highly respected throughout the world as a leading nation positioned between the Pacific and Indian Oceans and as part of the southern end of Asia. Why our Prime Minister had to grovel and denigrate Australia on his recent trip, I have absolutely no idea.

The Hon. R. J. Webster: Shame, shame.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: Exactly - shame, shame. Does the Prime Minister not realise that Asia understands, knows and respects our history? It is not what you say or call yourself that counts - it is what you do that matters. Most countries are proud of their past, learn from it and build upon the strengths of tradition. It is only the insecure and weak that are apologetic. Two days ago we were all very moved by the Coral Sea debate in this House. It is interludes like that two days ago that remind us of our country's history. Why for no good gain should we destroy it? We must stand up and be strong and proud of our heritage. Our flag and our monarchy are integral parts and linchpins of Australia. Why destroy them for an uncertain alternative? I note that the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann has left the Chamber. That shows what the Opposition really thinks of her speech. There can be only one reason - to create a diversion. A diversion from what? From the lack of leadership, and the poor economic management of the Federal Government.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: The Keating recession.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: Exactly. The Keating recession.

Page 3769

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: The recession we had to have.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: Only some people thought so. It is all very well for some honourable members opposite to call for a republic.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Unemployment decreased last month.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: Thanks to the New South Wales Government, unemployment did decrease. It is all very well for some honourable members opposite to call for a republic, but they provide no balance sheet or profit and loss account of the cost. In fact, they seem to want to change for the sake of change. Instead of unifying the country, such a move would split it with dissension and would do the very opposite of what is so badly needed. Australia is in great need of leadership. Republican ideas and views vary considerably. There are hundreds of differing ideas on what flag Australia should have, yet more than 50 per cent of the population know what they want - no ifs, no buts. They mean the present flag and Constitution.

The Hon. Franca Arena: Fifty-seven per cent of the population want a republic.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: The Hon. Franca Arena must be slow in her reading. If she had read the Australian last Tuesday she would be up to date on what has happened. Let us be democratic and get on with the job of running the country. People want jobs, for themselves and their children. It is shameful that Keating should be denigrating our flag while more than 30 per cent of our youth cannot get a job and many of them cannot even be trained for one. As my daughter would say, "Mr Keating, get real".

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: On a point of order. During the past few minutes I have listened with interest to this rendition by the honourable member. He is now digressing from the motion, which deals with the constitutional monarchy and with an amendment by the Hon. R. D. Dyer. Nowhere in the motion or the amendment can I find any reference to the flag. That debate is entirely separate, listed on the business paper to be moved by the Hon. J. F. Ryan. I suggest that the Hon. L. D. W. Coleman is out of order in canvassing a future debate in this Chamber on the flag. He should confine his remarks to the issue of constitutional monarchy.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: On the point of order. The Hon. L. D. W. Coleman is talking about the flag in the general terms in which the Prime Minister has chosen to link the flag and the monarchy. The honourable member was attempting to make the point that the link raised by the Prime Minister is being used to take attention away from the real issue in Canberra, that of the economy. At the moment the flag and the monarchy are linked in the Prime Minister's aims. The honourable member was making the point that that linking is relevant to this debate, which is about the value we place on the monarchy.

The PRESIDENT: Order! No point of order is involved.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: The concept of the flag and the monarchy being interlinked has been raised by many honourable members, including those opposite.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: I can tell the difference; why cannot the honourable member?

Page 3770

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: A point of order was taken, but I think members opposite waste time. As my daughter would say to Mr Keating: "Get real. Start worrying about Australia and Australians. Start governing. Tackle the real problem of jobs and job training. Forget about stupid diversions such as having an Australian flag and forming a republic by 2001". If we do not get on with employment there will be no worthwhile Australia to govern by the year 2001. We will have lost economically what our fathers fought for 50 years ago. All their efforts will have been lost by a Federal government that came to power in 1983. Let us cast our minds back 50 years to the darkest hour in our military history, the year the world lost one Lloyd Coleman and the year in which it gained another. Twenty-five years previously Squadron Leader Lloyd Coleman had lost his father, Lieutenant Herbert Coleman, also fighting for his country. My call is to serve this great country not on the battlefield like some of my forebears, but in the Legislature, like two other of my forebears.

It is all very well for some of the young Australians, some of the newer Australians and some who are misguided to deem the flag and monarchy as needing replacing, but they are too young, too immature or too misled to understand and appreciate what really makes an Australian. The monarchy symbolises those whom Australians look up to. The Union Jack on the flag symbolises history, which cannot be changed no matter what, while the stars represent the Australian States which make up Australia. No other country has this flag. It is recognised and respected as truly Australian. No other country in the world wants Australia to change it, and there is no reason to do so. Some people want a kangaroo on the flag. Do honourable members understand this unique marsupial? It conjures up a cuddly, loveable Skippy, of speed and endurance, an animal of beauty.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: On a point of order. I could read the motion but I do not want to over-emphasise the fact that it makes no reference to whether marsupials are depicted on the Australian flag. I have read the notice of motion of the Hon. J. F. Ryan. That motion provides adequately for a debate about all the issues attendant to the flag, including enabling the House to debate the sort of flag Australia might have, its colour and whether it depicts a kangaroo. The Hon. L. D. W. Coleman is out of order when he speaks about the shape, size, colour and content of the Australian flag. The motion now being debated is that this House affirms its support of the constitutional monarchy and, following an amendment by the Hon. R. D. Dyer, acknowledges the historical role played by Her Majesty the Queen, notes that Australia effectively has severed the remaining legal links, and expresses the belief that with the changing nature of Australian society republican sentiment has grown to such an extent.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have heard enough. I ask the Hon. L. D. W. Coleman to link his remarks to the motion.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: The problem is that we have let the other side run with people such as Turnbull. White and Manning Clark have been mentioned. I am putting the other side to the story.

The Hon. Franca Arena: That is about the flag. We are not discussing the flag.

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: This is all part of the debate. It is all part of what you are throwing at us.

The Hon. Franca Arena: I am not throwing anything at you.

Page 3771

The Hon. L. D. W. COLEMAN: Yes you are. This not the time to have diversions. If we lose the economic war, we lose all. Our forefathers worked hard and fought hard for this country. We are only the second race to hold this land. We should be teaching our children the modern version of God, Queen and country, as without the United Kingdom and our ally the United States of America we would not be in this honourable House today. We are part of a world team; we must play our part. We will not gain friends, respect and markets anywhere in the world by denigrating the flag or the monarchy. Our Asian neighbours see this as weakness. There are many and varied ideas held by the minority of the population about changes to the flag. Why should we let this worry us? While my family lost members who fought for God, Queen and country under our flag in two world wars, many of our present population and their forebears gratefully flocked to this country and its flag and stable monarchical government to escape war-torn Europe, the effects of war, dictators and communists. They and the members of my family who returned from the war built this country under the monarchy and the flag.

It is sheer hypocrisy now for a minority to try to change what they have built. We have to change not the monarchy or the flag but our attitudes to values and work. It is the greed and mismanagement of the 1980s that have led to our demise. Only good old fashioned tried and true values will return Australia to its former glory. I know that as a descendant of pioneers in every sense of the word, including the first Presbyterian minister on the Darling Downs - another great grandfather was a Church of England minister in the Victorian goldfields, where Australia saw the first great migration to this country - we are richer and wiser for the many and varied reasons for which people migrated to Australia from all over the world. They all chose the flag, the monarchy, the legal system, the language and of course the political system - all with their inherent checks and balances. It is no accident that the Westminster system stood the test of time: it began in the time of Edward the Confessor some 1100 years ago. Most of Europe's major nations had major upheavals in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, while England started refining its political system - later to become the Westminster system - some 1100 years ago. Apart from a few minor hiccups, it has come through without a major revolution. As the old Mortein advertisement said: "When you're on a good thing stick to it".

The Hon. Franca Arena unfortunately has not been in this great country long enough to understand the workings of the Westminster system. If there is any other reason for which she favours republicanism it would have to be for political ambitions. Surely Australia's parliamentary system and future should be put before our own political agenda. Our democracy is like a fine old grandfather clock made by Britain's great clockmakers, tick-tocking on, year in, year out, always on time, in no hurry but in fine balance. Remove or upset just one cog in its workings and the clock fails. Likewise, remove any cog in our democratic Westminster system and it fails - let alone one as major as replacing our Queen with a president. Our constitution is as sensitive as the old clock. Why upset the stability of the monarchy? We have inherited the most highly developed system of monarchy in the world, which Australia has enjoyed for two hundred years. I still remember vividly in 1954 going down to the Toowoomba showground to see our young Queen and Duke. I well remember in 1952 the huge headlines on every billboard along the Pacific Highway stating, "King dead". By the time I was 10 this fine king had already set the standards which I still aspire to. The message has not been taken up by people on the other side of this debate. The workers, the mums and the dads, know what life is all about. They are the grassroots supporters of the monarchy.

Page 3772

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [3.16]: I am pleased to support the motion moved by the Hon. J. M. Samios on 19th March affirming this House's support for the constitutional monarchy as essential to our Westminster parliamentary system and the stability and cohesion of our multi-cultural society. Indeed, it is an important matter of public interest that should be debated. Many honourable members have already expressed their views on this subject; I would also like to put on record mine. From my research, the question of whether Australia should become a republic was raised before Federation. In the 1870s the writer Anthony Trollope toured the Australian colonies and concluded that they would soon become republics. The Australian colonies, however, did not become a republican nation but a nation federated under a constitutional monarchy - in 1901. After a hundred years, in 1973, the republican movement foundation member, Donald Horne, confidently declared that Australia would be a republic within ten years.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I am having difficulty hearing the honourable member because of interjections.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Nearly 20 years later, in 1992, we remain under a constitutional monarchy. More recently some Australians expressed their belief that Australia should and would soon become a republic. As pointed out by the Hon. J. M. Samios in his speech on this motion, in June 1991 the Australian Labor Party passed a motion calling for the establishment of an Australian republic in the year 2001. To me there is little evidence that we are any closer to becoming a republic than we were twenty years ago. The Advisory Committee on Executive Government on the Constitutional Commission, after reviewing two decades of surveys, concluded that "there is no prospect, on the evidence available to us, of a change in public opinion in the near future which would result in there being major support for a republic". For nearly a century Australians have voted no to even minor constitutional changes. They are unlikely to vote to tear up the Federation, the Commonwealth and the Constitution in every State. This is why the Australia Labor Party envisages an educational campaign to convince Australians otherwise. However, such a campaign could be highly divisive and destructive. According to the Hon. John Howard, the Federal member for Bennelong:

The Labor Party is now embarking upon a ten year period of division and the development of enmity and bitterness in the community over which an issue, if it were left alone, would in the fullness of time solve itself in a non-divisive manner.

I agree with him. Writing in the Business Review Weekly not long ago, Les Carylon said that the purpose of the public debate and campaign is to distract us from the economic chaos that State and Federal Labor governments have put us in. He noted that since Mr Keating became Treasurer in 1983 Australia's foreign debt has increased sixfold to $145 billion. He said that we should ask Mr Keating if this debt will alter if we redesign the flag or dump the Queen. That is a good question. In my view there is no added value at all in doing either. At this point I would like to quote the former Labor Party leader, the former Prime Minister, who wrote on 5th April at page 29 of the Sydney Morning Herald on the subject of the monarchy. Bob Hawke said:

The well being of ordinary Australians would not be changed one iota if we became a republic tomorrow.

The Hon. Franca Arena: Calm yourself!

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Why don't you listen? I will quote again what Bob Hawke said, from the beginning:

Page 3773

The well being of ordinary Australians would not be changed one iota if we became a republic tomorrow.

The Hon. Franca Arena: That is your opinion.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: This is what Bob Hawke said. He continued:

When I see all the energy, not to mention expenditure going into the acceleration of the republic cause, I can't help but feel we would all be better off as Australians if that were channelled into supporting the process of reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians.

I hope the Hon. Franca Arena heard that reference to the reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. Bob Hawke went on to suggest that there should be a referendum to decide whether Australia should become a republic. I quote further from what he said:

If we are really concerned about what's best for our country then waiting a little longer and so securing some greater degree of unity is sensible.

The Hon. Franca Arena: This is the first time I have heard the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho quoting Bob Hawke.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: In this instance I am saying he is right. Unfortunately many of his Australian Labor Party colleagues, including the Hon. Franca Arena and our unelected Prime Minister, do not agree with him. Despite having more than 100 years to fine-tune their arguments, the new republicans have surprisingly little to convince us with. After being approached to join the republican movement, I wrote a reply, as indicated by the Hon. Franca Arena in her contribution. I stated that to date I remain unconvinced by the republican movement. The Hon. Franca Arena did not hear me. I said I replied to the invitation to join the republican movement.

The Hon. Franca Arena: You told us, "Not at this time".

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: It would seem that most republicans believe that there is a need to repair the psychological foundation of our nation.

[Interruption from gallery]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind those in the public gallery that it is disorderly for members of the public to interject or make comments.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: However, to suggest that Australia will come of age and exert her independence by declaring herself a republic makes about as much sense as an adolescent's claim that he will change his name to prove his adulthood and his independence from his parents. Australia has long ago achieved its nationhood and independence. The Hon. Franca Arena seemed to be ignorant of that fact when she argued in her contribution to this debate that "Australian nationhood will be retarded so long as there is a psychological dependence". The suggestion by the Hon. Franca Arena that Australia is not an independent nation is absolute nonsense. I should like to refer also to the ridiculous assertion made by the Hon. Franca Arena that "millions of migrants did not come to this country to become pseudo-British or Britons-in-exile". I would like to ask the Hon. Franca Arena why she migrated to Australia, knowing that Australia is a country with a constitutional monarchy, which she does not support. When she came here from Italy, was she thinking of becoming pseudo-British? Being a migrant myself - and I notice there are many migrants in the public gallery - I know that an overwhelming
Page 3774
majority of migrants coming to Australia have no confusion or resentment about the constitutional monarchy. I am sure that no Australian would have an identity crisis about being an Australian, whether by birth or by choice.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest to the Hon. Franca Arena that the debate will proceed much more expeditiously if she curbs her interjections.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I am sure the millions of former servicemen and servicewomen and their families, as referred to by the Hon. L. D. W. Coleman, have no identity crisis about being Australian. In Vietnam Australians fought under the Queen without any United Kingdom involvement. There was no doubt about our identity then as a nation, nor was there any during the Boer War, World War I or World War II. Australia is as independent as it can possibly be and has long been a fully recognised independent member of the United Nations. We have every reason to be proud of our association with the British monarchy. As has already been pointed out by the Hon. J. M. Samios and the Hon. D. J. Gay, the British Commonwealth is a shining example to the world of real multicultural harmony. In the Commonwealth many diverse nations with diverse cultures accept unequivocally the British Queen as their Head of State.

It is important to make our migrants feel welcome, but that does not mean we have to abandon what is important to us. The United States has received millions of migrants from a multitude of foreign countries. There has never been any question of Americans changing their Constitution to accommodate the wishes or prejudices of those who come from other countries. Canada, which has a formidable problem with its large French-speaking population in Quebec, has made many symbolic and substantial changes, including changing the national flag, to accommodate this minority population. However, that has not been followed by any improvement in community relations. Although some believe that business and trade will benefit if Australia becomes a republic, I dismiss that belief. Australia has a trading destiny in South-east Asia, whether it is a republic or a monarchical constitution. Asia will not be fooled into seeing Australians other than as we really are. It is doubtful that our major trading partner in the region, Japan, would respect us more if we abandoned our constitutional monarchy for a republic. The Japanese revere their monarch and might well perceive such a move as barbaric.

The most obvious difference between a republic and a constitutional monarchy is that one has an hereditary, as opposed to an elected, Head of State. This has some advantages. The nation is spared the political gimmickry and fanfare that is so much part of an election. An obvious advantage in having a monarch as Head of State is that there is no political power struggle for the position which has an undisputed succession. There is never a gap in the succession to the Crown. There is always a sovereign and the succession is certain and assured. The monarch is above politics and this, as a consequence, adds dignity, stability and a great unifying influence to the highest office. The republican alternative can only be divisive if a president is elected, and undemocratic if he or she is nominated or appointed. I would like to point out that a monarchy is provided at no cost to the Australian taxpayer. All we do is pay for the Queen's security when she is in Australia, as we do for His Holiness John Paul II, United States President George Bush or any other distinguished person in our midst. No other system of government could be more economical. It is worth noting that monarchies, compared with other nations in our area, have demonstrated a superior capacity to provide stability and cohesion while co-existing with rapid and equitable economic development, as in Japan, Malaysia and Thailand. Australia has emerged from the status of a British colony to an independent nation in a sensible and orderly fashion and at a pace consistent with the wishes of the Australian people.


Page 3775
The system of government provided for in the monarchical constitution has in no way impeded this development. There has been no bloodshed. It has been self-developed over a period of some 150 years by constant and creative interaction of local and imperial factors. The reality is that the monarch exercises no real powers. The exercise of the executive power in Australia is entrusted to the Governor General, who is appointed by the Queen of Australia on the nomination of her Australian Prime Minister. Likewise, the State Governors are appointed by the Queen only on the advice of the respective State Premiers. This is the fact and the law. The enactment of the Australian Act 1986 absolutely clarified our relationship. Perhaps eventually, a majority of Australians will one day want change. As a totally independent nation, Australia is capable of becoming a republic if we so desire. However, this change should not be forced upon us like an abrupt political adolescence or by an education campaign or brainwashing. It should evolve naturally with maturity. The question that ought be raised, and which was asked by a prominent Sydney Queen's Counsel, Lloyd Waddy, is:

Are we better off as we are or is there a better way for us to be governed?

Mr Waddy firmly believes in the current constitutional machinery. As he puts it:

. . . it is tried and true. Its greatest commendation is that it works, even in times of political stress such as 1975.

What Mr Waddy said is correct. I certainly agree with him. We should not change things that are working well. In conclusion, I concur with the sentiments expressed by the then Deputy Premier, Mr Heffron, when he spoke in this Parliament in 1954, on the occasion of the then young Queen Elizabeth's first visit to Australia as Regent:

This country, in common with the rest of the civilised world, owes a great debt of gratitude to Britain, to British institutions and above all to the British way of life. In Australia we have developed, in keeping with the British democratic pattern of fair play, justice and tolerance, and, in doing so we have, since our beginning 106 years ago, attained a status of virile nationhood. We are a free and independent people, in fact the freest democracy in the world.

At a time when our society is beset by the divisive stresses of absorbing the largest per capita migrant intake in the world and the worst recession since the great depression of 60 years ago, we should think long and hard before plunging the Australian community into a potentially bitter and divisive debate and precipitously severing our links with the monarchy, along with so much of our heritage. The Westminster parliamentary system with the constitutional monarchy is essential to providing stability and cohesion in our multicultural society. I support the motion before the House.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.35]: Even though I was born in England and am a direct descendant of Henry VII, I still believe it is a quaint anachronism to have an English-born Queen representing Australia as our Head of State. One can accept that she fills the role well and that she is loved by the overwhelming majority of her subjects, both in the United Kingdom and Australia. Nevertheless, it is a curiosity that we have such a person representing this nation of some 17 million people who have come from all over the globe to make up the melting pot which represents the Australian population today. Many of these people who are now Australians have absolutely no relationship with England, and simply do not understand why we have an Englishwoman, an hereditary monarch, representing Australia as Head of State. One can understand why so many people favour the retention of the monarchy for Australia, even though we only see our Head of State every few years on fleeting visits. Australia has few traditions and customs of its own which are not affected by or borrowed from Britain or other countries. The exceptions, of course, are our Aboriginal traditions and customs, which
Page 3776
have been largely overlooked by white Australians. People feel comfortable having traditions. It gives them a sense of security and something to cling on to, some sense of continuity of existence. That is the reason why the President and officers in this Chamber still wear these traditional costumes - to give us a sense of continuity with our past both in this Chamber and in the House of Lords.

Britain has now well and truly thrown in its lot with the European common market, which we were unable to join. As a result of this, our ties with Britain have been greatly diminished. Our ties were also weakened when restrictions were placed on Australians entering Britain and British people coming to Australia. It is completely inevitable that Australia will one day become a republic. Our ties with Britain - what some people used to call home not so very long ago - are being progressively diminished and weakened. Paul Keating is correct when he says that our destiny lies with Asia. One only has to look at the map to see that we are physically inextricably tied in with the Asian region. We are part of that region, and the sooner we realise it the better it will be for us economically. We can no longer look to Britain for leadership or for customs, or even for the majority of our migrant intake. There is also a serious question about the validity of an hereditary monarchy, regardless of whether this hereditary monarchy is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II or King Charles III. The world is becoming more democratic each year. Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union are now essentially democratic. The very concept of hereditary monarchs or hereditary dictators is an anachronism.

Kim Il Sung of North Korea believes he will be able to anoint his son as his successor. I doubt very much whether his dictatorship will survive his death. By what right does someone who happens to be born of a royal family have to be the Head of State of another country nearly 20,000 kilometres away. On the face of it, it really does seem an absurd proposition. They do not achieve this position by merit or by having been voted there by the populace; they achieve this position by pure accident of birth. It really is extraordinary. The whole concept of an aristocratic elite elevated above the general populace which is dominated by the ruling monarch is also absurdly anachronistic. Australians, and also the Americans and others, still kowtow to those who have hereditary titles. There is a belief that somehow, because a person has inherited a title which may have been bestowed on their ancestors by Queen Elizabeth I or one of the Henrys or perhaps Queen Victoria, they are better than you or I. It may well have been that the person who received the original title had achieved much for his or her country. It does not, however, mean that that person's successors - children, grandchildren and great grandchildren - should be treated with the same deference as the person who was originally awarded the honour. This has been acknowledged, in that many titles awarded now are for life only and are not hereditary.

It is obvious that in the past 10 or 20 years Australian attitudes towards the royal family have changed considerably. The reception Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh received on their last visit to Australia was far less fawning and enthusiastic than on previous visits. When the title passes to Prince Charles, I can not imagine Australians treating him with the same awe as many Australians now treat Her Majesty the Queen. Indeed, Prince Charles has queried why Australia is not yet a republic. Notwithstanding the curious anachronism of having an hereditary monarch as our Head of State, it has certain safeguards of a practical nature. I would prefer to have Her Majesty the Queen as our Head of State than someone such as a President Reagan or a President Hawke. The problem with republics often is that the person elected or appointed as Head of State is often involved with one side or another of politics. Because of the hereditary nature of her position, the Queen is quite apart from politics. Although the Queen is the head of the establishment, she is almost totally neutral. I believe it is
Page 3777
far safer to have a neutral Head of State with very few powers than an elected Head of State such as President Reagan or President Bush with considerable powers. If elected this year President Bush will almost certainly be elected by a small minority of the total number of American people, perhaps as few as 20 per cent of the total population. Though he is Head of State he represents a minority of Americans.

Likewise, if Australia were to become a republic - and I believe inevitably it will - and a president were elected, we may well have a Bill Hayden, a Bob Hawke or a Malcolm Fraser as president of Australia, and I do not relish that prospect. There are few people living today who I imagine would be a universally respected president of Australia. Perhaps we need someone like Don Bradman, a universally loved and national treasure, or perhaps a woman such as Justice Elizabeth Evatt or Janet Holmes á Court. It concerns me that whoever is elected president of Australia will be the person who can organise the most support and the most donations from supporters. Honourable members would be aware that Ross Perot has announced that he may stand for the American presidency. Ross Perot made billions of dollars developing supermarkets. He is an extremely interesting character. Although he is the second or third richest man in the world, he drives an old pickup truck and is highly regarded by his staff. It is not impossible that, with his billions of dollars and his popularity, this odd-ball character could become the next president of the United States of America. Only a person with $100 million could become a president. It is regrettable that effectively money buys the presidency of the United States of America. Similarly if there were to be a vote for a president of Australia, almost certainly the likely candidates would need several million dollars each in order to conduct an adequate campaign. Once again, the candidate with the most money and the most media sway would be the person who would become our Head of State. Frankly, that would not be healthy for Australia.

On the Ross Perot model we could well have Sir Peter Abeles or Kerry Packer becoming president of Australia merely because of the resources that are available to them to campaign. Could honourable members imagine a President Abeles, a President Packer or even a President Murdoch? The real problem with replacing a quaintly anachronistic, hereditary monarch with an elected president is that we might be throwing out someone who is relatively benign and neutral for an elected president who is associated with a political party or a business and is not generally accepted by the populace. It is highly likely that an elected Australian president would want considerably more powers than those that our monarch currently has. In other words, having the Queen as our Head of State is in itself a safety factor for our democracy. She rarely makes controversial statements and does not involve herself in politics or the day-to-day running of the country. We can be reasonably certain as to who will be the next Head of State and the Head of State after that. There is no speculation, no jockeying for position, no major election campaign and millions of dollars are not wasted. Though I believe that inevitably Australia will become a republic, it would not surprise me that, when the majority of Australians do eventually vote for this, many of those who supported the idea of a republic will find the replacement - the president of the day - is not to their liking. They may yearn for the good old days when we had an hereditary monarch.

There is nothing malign in having a hereditary monarch. It is something of an odd curiosity, but it does not actually harm Australia or Australians. We do not suffer from having an hereditary monarch. Rather, it adds colour and pageantry to our somewhat humdrum lives. It gives us a sense of connection to what was our mother country and a sense of a continuation of a tradition going back more than a thousand years. It is somewhat like being part of a family. Many people, particularly
Page 3778
conservative people, like this sense of continuation of tradition. They feel comfortable with retaining long-standing traditions. There is a certain amount of security and certainty in retaining such traditions. Venturing into the unknown and overthrowing the current system for a republic may sound exciting, but it may result in a Head of State who interferes with the running of the country, who becomes involved in the political process, and who is elected by only half the people of Australia. I should not like to see the position of Head of State politicised as it has been in many countries. I would prefer that our Head of State be above politics, revered by the vast majority of the populace and symbolic but nevertheless a safeguard to the continuity of our traditions and democracy. It is curious that a neutral, unelected Head of State can be more of a benefit to our democracy than an elected political president.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH [3.45]: It gives me great pleasure to support the motion of the Hon. J. M. Samios that "this House affirms its support of the constitutional monarch as essential to our Westminster parliamentary system and the stability and cohesion of our multicultural society". I congratulate the honourable member on moving this important motion. Though born in this country, the Hon. J. M. Samios comes from an ethnic family of Greek origin, which speaks particularly highly for his feelings and for the millions of people of ethnic backgrounds on the importance of the constitutional monarchy. I have been pondering why so many people, particularly members on the Opposition benches, want to change the system that made this country such a great country. Change for the sake of change is something to which I have never subscribed. If I had felt deep in my heart that there was a need to break away from the constitutional monarchy I would be the first to agree with it, but there is no cause or reason for change, irrespective of what the Australian Labor Party has to say. Recently the Prime Minister, Mr Keating, stated that there was a need for an Australian identity, hence the reason for him supporting the change to a republic and a change to our traditional flag. I shall dwell on the subject of our identity for a few minutes.

It is pathetic, to say the least, to think that in 1992 we need to state that we must have an Australian identity. For heaven's sake, we have had an identity ever since this country was first founded. One only had to witness the march of the sailors up George Street in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea or to be present at the cenotaph on Monday at the laying of wreaths on that great memorial to recognise that Australians have a definite identity and are recognised for what we are. The world knows Australia and Australians so why do we need in 1992 to seek an identity for ourselves? The various expressions that we use are recognised throughout the world - gidday and good on yer mate. Indeed, it was that fellow Hogan who in the two movies "Crocodile Dundee" and "Crocodile Dundee 2" brought home to millions of people throughout the world the identity of Australians. I recall a story told to me by my late uncle who served in Galipolli - and this appears in Hansard when honourable members commemorated the seventy-fifth anniversary of the landing at Galipolli - about the whimsical side of the Australian digger under adverse conditions. Two diggers were in the trenches. One was rolling a cigarette and lolling at the back of the trench and the other, being more alert, said to his friend, "Didn't the colonel say he would give us 10 bob for every Turk we shot?", to which his companion replied, "Yeah, I guess that's right". The fellow who was on the alert said, "Well, there is 4,000 quids worth coming down the hill right now".

Even under adverse conditions Australians still retain a sense of humour peculiar only to this country. One only has to travel the world, particularly the United States of America, and say one comes from Australia to be welcomed. Why? Because of the friendly hospitality which was meted out to millions of American servicemen and others
Page 3779
who were here, English as well as French. That is one of the many reasons we are regarded so highly in the world. I return to the question of constitutional monarchy, which has been adequately covered by previous speakers, particularly by the mover of this motion. In my speech in the Address-in-Reply debate I referred to the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, in October 1974 when he addressed this House. His Royal Highness spoke about our peculiar brand of parliamentary democracy with its extraordinary capacity for improvisation, evolution and change, and of his belief that the institution of the monarchy is one of the strongest factors in the continuance of a stable government. Experience demonstrates to me how fortunate we are to have a system which gives all men and women the opportunity of serving the State and Commonwealth in our various parliaments. I am firmly of the opinion that the monarchy itself has helped tremendously to achieve stable government. The institution of the monarchy has reacted favourably to change, an example of which was given in the speech of His Royal Highness in 1974. In his address his said:

No one has the monopoly of self-rightfulness in our human existence and no one, person or organisation or party has the answers. That is why parliamentary democracy, as we know it, is such a sound system for the simple fact that it allows debate and civilised argument to take place free of restrictions or fear of censorship.

He went on to say:

The great advantages of the evolutionary change - as opposed to revolutionary - is that it can be assimilated much more easily, is more conducive to sound and sensible government, and it is also indicative of an advanced form of civilisation which is based upon tolerance, self-discipline and adult appreciation on the concept of freedom.

One only had to witness the excitement of the very young during the recent visit of Her Majesty the Queen at the various functions she attended to realise that even these young people understand that she is our Queen, Queen of Australia, and I want to see that the monarchy continues for a long time to come. The Hon. R. D. Dyer has moved by way of amendment some five parts. In the first one he says:

(1) recognises and respects the historical role played by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her predecessors in the government of New South Wales and the Commonwealth of Australia;

He therefore recognises the role the constitutional monarchy has played in the growth of this nation. He continues to say, though I do not believe it has any real bearing on the issue:

(2) notes that the Australia Act 1986 effectively severed the remaining legal links between Australia and the United Kingdom.

I did not take any notice of that as I believe that appeals to the Privy Council were unnecessary and could have been settled here. In the third part of his amendment he states:

(3) believes that, with the changing character of Australian society, republican sentiment has grown to such an extent that it is probable that a majority of Australians will desire Australia to become a republic.

That is conjecture of the worst order. Where is the changing character of Australian society? Just because our intake of immigrants has increased, is that changing our society? These people play cricket, football, go to the pub, swear like other Australians; in fact I think that many of the ethnic people that come to Australia swear a lot more than Australians do. So what is this changing character of Australian society and why should
Page 3780
we change because a few radicals such as the Hon. Franca Arena and some of her ilk want to change to a republic? It is utter nonsense and must be knocked on the head as soon as possible. Again I congratulate the Hon. J. M. Samios, and I ask all members of this House to support the motion. God save the Queen.

The Hon. K. J. ENDERBURY [3.54]: A certain gentleman's name was mentioned earlier in the debate, a Mr Malcolm Turnbull. We all know about Mr Malcolm Turnbull being a very prominent Liberal. I started wondering how many other republicans there are in the Liberal Party. I am just wondering whether sitting on the opposite benches there could be some covert republicans. At least Malcolm Turnbull has the honesty as a prominent Liberal to come out and say, "I am a republican". So it is very interesting. I do not see this issue as a simple party matter because my party also represents a wide range of views. I would hate to think members opposite have secret views but have been bound to vote on this motion in a particular way. I believe one day Australia will become a republic, but that should only be the clear will of a great majority of Australians. I will not be in the vanguard pushing for a republic because quite frankly - this is where I differ from some of my colleagues - I believe there are better things worth fighting for. I do not believe Australia has suffered in any way by being a monarchy. In any event, I wonder about what we would replace it with. I believe that a republic will come about, but in removing one institution what do we replace it with? Do we want the American system, with an elected President? Do we want an appointed Governor-General, as is the present custom, to take over the full role of the monarchy. I take the view that, if we are to have an appointed Governor-General or President, former politicians should not occupy that position. I say that with the full knowledge that the present Governor-General is Bill Hayden, former leader of the Australian Parliamentary Labor Party. I do not agree with the general principle.

However, I will not be fighting to preserve the monarchy either; I have always believed that we do not need it. I believe that change will come but only when the people want it, and that is when it should occur. I rather resent the anti-British theme that has been introduced into this debate. My parents were English; my father came to Australia at 19 years of age and my mother when she was 17 years of age. They were married here and I was born here. I am proud of my British heritage. I would never dare attack Italy; I would not want to offend my friend and colleague the Hon. Franca Arena. Nor would I attack Greece, offending my friend the Hon. Jim Kaldis; or Lebanon, offending my friend the Hon. Eddie Obeid; or even China, which would offend my friend and colleague the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. I would certainly never dare offend anyone from Ireland. So I rather resent it when people turn this debate into an anti-British debate because I am proud of my heritage and where I came from. I reflect the feelings inherent in all of us about where we sprang from by mentioning what Scott had to say in the "Lay of the Last Minstrel". I am sure many of you are familiar with this quote:

Breathes there a man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land.

I understand the sentiments and philosophy of people who were born here and in other parts of the planet. I would like to say a few things about Prime Minister Paul Keating's remarks which have been mentioned in this debate. I listened carefully to his speech on the occasion of Her Majesty's recent visit. I found his remarks to be moderate, accurate and respectful. But there was a violent overreaction from crusty conservatives both in the United Kingdom and here. I might say they were not typical of British sentiment generally. What terrible people they trotted out on television to attack Paul Keating and the Australian Labor Party. They were pretty poor representatives of the British people.
Page 3781
I do not believe they represented the British people anyway. I harken back to that great British Prime Minister, Disraeli. In 1880 he said:

Everyone likes flattery; and when you come to Royalty you should lay it on with a trowel.

Things have changed since 1880, but after listening to some members in the House one would not think so. They have been laying it on with a trowel. They gush about royalty. It is absolutely unnecessary. There has been criticism of the role of Britain in the last great conflict, World War II. Many British died fighting for what they believed in on the Malay Peninsula. At that time Britain was fighting for its very life. It was about to be invaded by fascist armies from Nazi Germany. Quite frankly, it could not do any more than it did. Britain should not be held responsible for so-called deserting Australia. I do not believe she did. She was about to fall herself. However, the great Australian Prime Minister John Curtin was very right to recall Australian troops from that theatre of war and bring them back to Australia, against the wishes of that crusty conservative, Winston Churchill, who wanted to keep Australian troops there. John Curtin did the right thing. He later turned to the United States of America to develop the alliance which saved this country at that time of great conflict.

I pay tribute also to the British tradition, as have other honourable members, which we all owe something to. Our language, culture, law, Parliament and very way of life has come from British tradition. I have no argument whatsoever with what is decided by Australians about the monarchy. However, I will fight to retain our membership of the Commonwealth. Even if Australia became a republic, I would fight to keep Australia within the Commonwealth. I was in London at the time of the terrible assassination of the Indian leader, Rajiv Ghandi. I was one among other representatives of the Commonwealth countries who went to the Indian High Commission to pay respect to India on the occasion of its loss. I was very moved by the feeling of kinship between people from all races in the Commonwealth who came to pay tribute to that Indian leader. India is a republic, but it is very much within the Commonwealth. Australia should always stay in the Commonwealth. I will fight for that. I just wish that some elements of the republican movement would cease their anti-British attacks. They are not desirable; they are not necessary; they are offensive to many people; and it weakens their cause and their argument. I believe that Australia will one day become a republic. When Australians decide to do so, I hope it will be without the rank bitterness and some of the sheer nonsense that has been put forward in this debate.

The Hon. BERYL EVANS [4.2]: I have great pleasure in supporting the motion moved by the Hon. J. M. Samios. I cannot find anything of real substance that would convince me that Australia should become a republic. So much superficial rhetoric seems to monopolise the reasons given for change - for example, the suggestion that the sooner we become a republic and the sooner we abolish all the nonsense of honour systems, royal visits and British nostalgia, the greater will be our chance of survival. Survival from what? Is our survival dependent upon a position between what we have now - a monarchy - and a republic? Some are still opposed to the honour system. Many Australians receive honours from such other countries as France and America. Are we not to receive these also? So far as royal visits are concerned, I cannot name any country that has not welcomed a royal visit and, by so doing, been disadvantaged. How does one look at the future without looking back to the nostalgia of the greatness of the British Empire and the Commonwealth of Nations, of which we are a part. This era played a very real part in our development through belonging to a group of nations. If we progress towards having no loyalty to anyone but ourselves, we will join the ranks of the
Page 3782
isolated. One of the greatest problems in the world today is lack of communication between people and nations. To isolate ourselves as a republic would reduce the communication we have now, not only with those who share our Crown but also with other nations. It leaves us as a very small fish in a very large ocean.

It is said that we are making use of someone else's monarchy. It is argued that a country thousands of kilometres away from Britain, now inhabited by many people not of British origin, should free themselves of the forms and customs of a far away land and fashion its own distinctive system. We draw three important benefits from Britain. The first is a functioning system of constitutional monarchy, the result of hundreds of years of constitutional development in the direction of liberty. The modern British Crown is a symbol of liberty, not repression, and remains the ultimate bulwark against the illegal use of power by a government. The Queen, as the Head of State of this democracy, inspires loyalty and a vote for a powerful sense of allegiance and therefore national unity. Where she lives is irrelevant. For Australians living in Broome - and I suppose all honourable members know where Broome is - there is little difference between Buckingham Palace and Yarralumla. The royal family is a ready-made, off-the-shelf, non-political provider of a Head of State; a repository of personal and family values that cannot be guaranteed by a locally organised system of election or appointment.

The argument that people of non-British origin find the institution of a British monarch distasteful is completely unpersuasive. People have come to Australia to enjoy the fruits of the liberal tradition developed primarily in Britain. They do not come here to be oppressed by Britain. They come here for freedom and prosperity, and the benign nature of the British monarchy is surely a symbol of these benefits. A moment's thought about the twentieth century history of the countries from which most of the non-British migrants have come reinforces this perspective. The other side of the coin in this debate on the monarchy is: what would it be replaced with, and would that be better? Do we really want to spend enormous amounts of time arguing about what kind of precedent we should have, how the president should be elected and so on? There are many more important issues in this country on which we should be spending our time and energy.

For Australia to have a non-political president, by appointment to be ratified by a vote of both Houses of the Federal Parliament, would be a contradiction in terms. How could such a person be non-political? He or she would have to be supported by someone or by some party. If it is suggested that Australia is to have an executive president, as in the United States of America, then the focal point is an office occupied by a person who would be frequently criticised and often abused by the electors. A presidency would collect around it a group of elites in exactly the same way as the Crown is now accused of doing by the republicans. There would be the same desire for people to attend a presidential function as there would be to attend a royal garden party. Human nature does not change with the whims of political decisions.

Let us consider some more rhetoric: the monarchy glamourises our stuffy conservatism, our failure to link ourselves with Asian countries, our failure to develop the north, our failure to develop technology. How can anyone today seriously say that there is a correlation in Anglo-Australian policy? The simplest and most often quoted example used to prove this is our participation in Vietnam without the British and the separate decisions taken at different times for the recognition of Red China. Since Britain's entry into the Common Market, we have linked ourselves more and more with Asian countries. This to me is a normal economic progression and completely unrelated to the relativity of a monarchy or a republic. On developing the north, will Australia being a republic ensure that we make more responsible policies than we make now as a
Page 3783
monarchy? It could be due to many reasons: that technology has lagged in some areas; geographic isolation; Government policies; and so on. We are repeatedly told that our migrants are offended by the monarchy. Some appear to be offended by the English language, compulsory voting, and our eating and drinking habits. Are we to change these too to please a few? Surely, it is not too much to ask them to accept some of our customs. We all have so much to learn from one another.

Ad nauseam - to me, at least - such people as Donald Horne have continually repeated their antagonism towards the flag and the Crown. Why is there this repugnance to our heritage, this cry for a so-called identity. I do not understand this attitude. To me it displays an immaturity in these people. I know we have an identity. We have so many things of which we can be proud. We are a people of a developing country with a potentially tremendous future; we have rich resources of a quality and quantity we are only just beginning to realise. We are proudly Australians. Those who do not believe or understand this belong to the past and not to the future. I know that I can go anywhere in the world today and say, "I'm an Australian", and it means something. It does not just mean kangaroos, koalas, meat pies and Holden cars. Being Australian now gives us a place to stand in the world and be recognised as such. Those who feel that they must be branded by signs and songs and heralded as Australians before Australia can be recognised as a nation live in the past.

Finally, let me mention the flag, for the benefit of the Hon. Franca Arena, if for no one else. I will not see a new flag proclaimed for much the same reasons as I believe the monarchy must be retained. The two issues are different in scale, of course, as the constitution is infinitely more important than symbols. The presence of the Union Jack in one corner of the flag appears to symbolise to our multicultural society subservience to Britain. To do so is to misread the symbolisation. That quarter of the flag which is the Union Jack reminds me of the inheritance of liberty and cultural freedom; of our history, our heritage and our very beginnings; of my ancestors who came to this land and carved out the beginnings of this nation: it does not symbolise domination. The remaining quarters of the flag with the Southern Cross in a blue sky and the seven-pointed star of the Federation of the States and Territories symbolises our uniquely Australian contribution, past, present and future that builds our inheritance and extends its nature. The flag is an authentic home-grown symbol springing directly from the consciousness of Australian nationhood. Interestingly, the flag of Hawaii also has the Union Jack on it as part of its heritage and history. The Australian flag was designed and came into being at the beginning of Australian Federation. I offer the following quote:

The flag that is now Australia's National flag, which is based on the blue ensign, is a very beautiful flag and you would probably believe the most beautiful flag in the world.

Few Australians would argue with that forthright statement but many would be surprised at its source - the controversial political Judge H. B. Evatt, speaking as the Leader of the Opposition in 1953. Since then the flag has been flown on all significant national occasions, from the beaches of Gallipoli -

The Hon. Franca Arena: On a point of order. A ruling was made earlier that this debate is about whether Australia should be republic or monarchy. The honourable member has been speaking about the flag for a considerable time. The Opposition has been patient, but the debate is not about the flag. I ask that the honourable member be requested to refrain from commenting on a topic that is not referred to in the motion.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: On the point of order. Earlier a ruling was made on a similar point of order taken by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald that the flag could be
Page 3784
mentioned in debate if linked to the monarchy. The Hon. Franca Arena is seeking to canvass that earlier ruling.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order but I ask the Hon. Beryl Evans to link her comments to the motion.

The Hon. BERYL EVANS: To suit the convenience of honourable members and because of the lateness of the hour, I shall skip the story I was about to tell the Hon. Franca Arena. That will be her loss - not mine. The first flag flown in this country was John Bowman's flag in 1806. John Bowman was my sons' ancestor. My family and my husband's family were those early settlers who had the courage to migrate to this land and prepare a path for others to follow. It amazes me and offends me that the new settlers to this land today are unable to say thanks for the peace and liberty they have gained. Not only do they want to change our way of life, but they want to go back to the very standards from which they had escaped. Our heritage and traditions are British and as such include our attachment to the concept of the monarchy and to the person of a monarch. No elected or appointed Head of State will ever achieve the station and degree of respect that is enjoyed by our present Head of State and the system that produces it. We have the oldest democratic constitutional monarchy in the world. It was the first of its kind to have full adult suffrage with women entitled to stand for elected office. It has given us a stable, peaceful, tolerant multicultural society in which migrants have found a haven from conflict, a new start in life. It is a society that welcomes the contributions they make. It is because I love this country that I believe that democracy, justice, equality and liberty need to be safeguarded by an institution that is trusted by the people and that is above the sordid level of daily politics. This why I support the Crown. I am a monarchist.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It being 4.15 p.m., proceedings are interrupted to permit the Minister to move the adjournment of the House should he so desire.

The Hon. E. P. Pickering: No, I do not so desire.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [4.16]: I seek the leave of the House to move a motion to suspend so much of the standing orders as would enable Government business to take precedence after 4.15 p.m. I do so because of the historic nature of this particular motion. Many members have contributed to the debate and others have expressed a wish to do so.

Leave not granted.