Debate resumed from 7th May.

The Hon. BERYL EVANS [3.32]: I have pleasure in concluding the speech I commenced on 7th May in support of the motion moved by the Hon. J. M. Samios:

Page 6426

That this House affirms its support for the Constitutional Monarchy as essential to our Westminster Parliamentary System and the stability and cohesion of our multicultural society.

Honourable members may recall that when I last spoke in this debate the Hon. Franca Arena did not think it was fit that I should include reference to the Australian flag. She does not regard that as being connected to this debate, whereas I consider that the flag is linked as a symbol of our history and heritage to the very beginnings of my ancestors who came to this land and carved out the beginnings of this nation. Last week I attended the Tenth Australian and Pacific Regional Seminar in Hobart as the New South Wales delegate. Honourable members will be interested to learn that on the last day of the seminar a paper was delivered by Dr Richard Herr of Tasmania entitled "Republics in the Commonwealth". A heated debate on the whole subject ensued. I was particularly interested to hear the views of delegates from the Pacific Islands - Western Samoa, Nauru and New Guinea. The delegates represented countries which had since become independent, but they fiercely believe in the monarch and are proud that they still regard Her Majesty as Queen of their countries. How pleasing it was for me to hear them giving strong expressions of support for the Queen and the monarchy. The delegate from Papua New Guinea said that he had the greatest pleasure in saying that she was the Queen of Papua New Guinea. The representatives from Western Samoa said that they could not imagine having any other Head of State than the present Queen, whom they greatly admire.

Discussion in that session focused on the republican idea of replacing the Queen with a Head of State, but avoided the more difficult question of the constitutional and political structures that needed to be put in place. When I pointed that out at the conference I was assured that those structures would have to be put together. But by whom? The matter is so vague that my mind boggles. Why demolish a system that is working perfectly and replace it with an unknown quantity? Recently the world has been bombarded with only negative images of the royal family. That has been so in almost every press report I have read. The frenzied attack by the media on the royal family has been disgusting. If one had a suspicious mind, one could come to the conclusion that it is a concerted effort to seriously undermine, and even destroy, the monarchy. Never, or rarely, does one see comment in the press about the unwavering commitment of the royal family to the people. In our small role as politicians we know only too well that we are at the beck and call of the people we serve, and we know how tiring and exhausting that is at times.

We should remember that in the midst of all the media hype the royal family, unlike politicians who have the privilege of Parliament in which to attack their critics, must remain silent and smile. They present a picture of poise and loyalty. I wonder how some members of this Parliament would cope in such a difficult situation. My admiration for the Queen, her family and especially the Queen Mother is tremendous. I should reiterate a comment I made earlier in the debate: we have the oldest democratic constitutional monarchy in the world. It was the first of its kind to have full adult suffrage so that women were entitled to stand for elected office. If anything can convince the Hon. Franca Arena to support the motion, that should do it. The monarchy 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 democracy, justice, equality and liberty need to be safeguarded by an institution that is trusted by the people and is above the sordid level of daily politics. That is why I support the Crown and say proudly that I am a monarchist.


Page 6427
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [3.37]: I oppose the motion moved by the Hon. J. M. Samios:

That this House affirms its support for the Constitutional Monarchy as essential to our Westminster Parliamentary System and the stability and cohesion of our multicultural society.

Those who supported the motion have been misled by two myths, the first being that the monarchy is idolised in Great Britain and in Australia - and has been throughout recent history. Other honourable members invited attention to the numerous countries in the British Commonwealth that have become republics and are still democracies. Their becoming republics does not mean the destruction of the Commonwealth. After listening to many of those who support the motion, I have come to the view that they have very little knowledge of the history of this Parliament or the history of Australia. Have they forgotten that the first Democrats in New South Wales wanted to break all ties with Britain and establish a republic in the early 1850s? Indeed, 150 years ago democracy and republicanism were closely related. J. B. Hirst, historian of La Trobe University, states in his book The Strange Birth of Colonial Democracy:

The Sydney Democrats favoured an Australian Republic not merely as a means of achieving self-government. They considered that it was only in a republic that democratic principles could triumph.

It is fascinating to read of the early republicans. There was Henry Parkes, toymaker; the Reverend J. D. Lang, Presbyterian Minister; Adelaide Ironside, painter; the poet Charles Harpur; and also Daniel Deniehy, the convict son who had been given a brilliant education in Europe and was fluent in several European languages. It is interesting also to read in the context of this debate that in the early 1850s when the first republicans were fighting for self-government it was assumed that the form of government would be based on the British pattern: the Governor would replace the monarch and an elected Assembly the House of Commons. Debate raged about the Legislative Council. William Wentworth went so far as to demand colonial aristocracy. He wanted the Legislative Council to be composed of members nominated for life and then superseded by a colonial aristocracy described by Daniel Deniehy as the bunyip aristocracy. There was much ribald comment about how local peers were to be chosen. Were they to be as drunk as a lord or as rich as a lord. The debate raged in Great Britain and Australia, as it is doing today. The Duke of Newcastle was Minister for the colonies and Earl Grey was his successor. His father, who was the architect of the first Reform Bill in 1832, favoured elected upper Houses. Perhaps honourable members also should be reminded that in 1852 W. G. Gladstone insisted "that the British character of the colonies did not depend on a close imitation of British institutions". He said:

So from Britain itself, came the word that the threefold order of King, Lords and Commons was not essential for Britishness.

Gladstone even went so far as to say that in forming colonial constitutions, the best guide was the constitution of the United States. This was a most important statement, if one is familiar with the life and times of William Gladstone, because he certainly was not a Liberal; he was a very conservative politician. However, in the late 1850s the move towards an Australian republic began to lose momentum and it foundered for three reasons. First, the French colonisation of New Caledonia; second, the Crimean War, which led to fear of a Russian invasion; and, third, of course, the lack of enthusiasm for a republic based on the American model following the outbreak of the American Civil War. Another factor for the loss of momentum was the visit in 1867 of Prince Alfred, who was not one of Queen Victoria's favourite sons. In fact, in her diary notes she described him as "reserved, touchy, vague, and wilful" - and that was his mother talking
Page 6428
about him! He led a wild life, so she had him effectively banished. As soon as he was promoted captain of the Galatea he was given orders to visit Australia, and that was the first royal tour. After visiting South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria in 1868 he came to Sydney and was shot at a picnic in Clontarf by Henry O'Farrell. Prince Alfred's wounds were minor but the public anger unleashed by the attempted assassination was unprecedented. Within six days the Treason Felony Act was passed. A mass demonstration of 20,000 citizens was held in Hyde Park and, believe me, in 1868 that was a considerable number. What was worse, there was a vicious anti-Catholic crusade and a refusal by Henry Parkes to modify the Treason Felony Act, even when it became obvious that there was no Fenian conspiracy and the British Government was outraged by the provisions of the Act.

Prior to the attempted assassination the monarch had been no more respected in New South Wales than she was in England. As I said at the outset, it may come as a surprise to many honourable members to learn that even Queen Victoria was not universally revered, nor was she ever anti-Catholic, though she was head of the Anglican Church. In 1851 Queen Victoria opposed the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill and wrote in her diary, "I cannot bear to hear the violent abuse of the Catholic religion, which is so painful and so cruel towards many good and innocent Roman Catholics". I wonder if she was thinking of the Prince Consort who had great difficulty in being accepted as an Anglican. Even during the Golden Jubilee celebrations riots occurred in Trafalgar Square, and, in May 1894, when she opened the People's Palace in Mile End Road, she was greeted, in her own words, by "A horrid noise - booing and hooting". Nor do I think it is generally realised that Queen Victoria became Queen as the result of an historical accident.

When in 1817 George IV's daughter, Princess Charlotte, died in childbirth his brothers, Ernest, Duke of Cumberland, Adolphous, Duke of Cambridge, and William, Duke of Clarence, embarked on a mad scramble to provide an heir to the throne. Cumberland, Cambridge and Clarence became known as the "wicked dukes". As a young girl, Victoria was kept by her mother as far away from them as possible, for fear she would be "removed". Her mother was even suspicious of the Duke of Clarence after he became William IV. It was after the death of Princess Charlotte that the hasty marriages of the other dukes, all to minor German royalty, became described as the "race for the throne". Victoria's father, Edward, Duke of Kent, had been ordered out of England in 1789 by George III because his affair with a young French actress, who died in childbirth, had been made public by the General Evening Post. If it is thought that the media treatment of the present royal family is sensational, 200 years earlier similar treatment was accorded to the royal family. Queen Victoria was born in England and not in Hanover, but only because her father saw it as the only way of assuring her succession. However, she was brought up essentially as a German princess and German was her first language.

It makes fascinating reading to hear of the convoy that left Amorbach in March 1819 to cover 400 miles of rough roads to Calais, and then attempted the three-hour channel crossing. The motley convoy of post-chaises, barouche, phaetons, dogcarts and baggage carts took nearly three weeks to reach Calais, and the party was delayed by bad weather. Queen Victoria's mother, who was nine months pregnant when she made this pilgrimage, must have had a dreadful time. On 26th March the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to a son and on 27th March the Duchess of Clarence gave birth to a daughter who only survived a few hours, unlike the score of illegitimate children born to the Duke of Clarence by his mistress, the actress Dorothy Jordan. Three days after Victoria was born the Duchess of Cumberland gave birth to a son who later became George V of Hanover. Of all the wicked dukes, the Duke of Cumberland was by far the worst.
Page 6429
Rumours abounded that he plotted against the Duchess of Kent and her daughter, Victoria, because she could lay formal claim to the heir to the throne.

What has all this to do with a constitutional monarchy? I mention it to remind honourable members that the events leading up to the accession of Queen Victoria, and many of the events of her reign, were matters of public outrage, criticism, rumour and wild gossip. Her extreme youth when she ascended the throne made her more acceptable than her profligate uncles who, in any case, were all younger than her father, thus barring their children from the succession. In spite of the length of Queen Victoria's reign and the comparative calm of the reign of George V, 100 years later, prior to the accession of George VI, many people in Great Britain supported the British Government's stand to persuade Edward VIII to abdicate, not to sustain the monarchy but to move towards a republic in Britain. These are the events of my lifetime and I remember the events of 1938 vividly. When George VI was crowned there were many disappointed republicans in Britain, but it was never suggested that the Westminster system of government would collapse. It is for this, and other reasons, that I feel it is inappropriate to link the monarchy with the Westminster system of government. Recently republican candidates stood in the British general election. I believe the strength of the republican movement may grow, particularly if Prince Charles continues to suffer the fate of his great-grandfather and is forced to wait in the wings until he reaches late middle age. This is already a matter of concern in England and was being noted in the newspapers when I visited in June. At the outset I said that there are two myths surrounding our parliamentary system. The second myth is that Australia follows the Westminster system - the British model. Until 1901 Australians may have been able to make that statement with truth because, originally, all State Parliaments in the mid-nineteenth century were based on the Westminster system. As Professor R. S. Parker said:

It is rather important to unravel the tangle of intellectual constructs, emotional responses and pictures of the real world evoked by the phrase ‘the Westminster system'.

It is this emotional response that has led many Australians to believe that the Parliament in Britain was exported unchanged to the colonies in spite of early moves towards a republic. As Dean Jaensch has said:

The term ‘Westminster system' has become part of the rhetoric of Australian political parties.

For example, the National Party constitution begins its list of basic principles with these words:

Preservation of democracy, the Westminster parliamentary system of government and the Commonwealth Constitution.

The founders of the National Party conveniently ignored the basic difference between the British and Australian parliaments. Australia's Parliament and the New South Wales Parliament, of which we are all members, are constrained by written constitutions, the result of the activities of William Wentworth and the early members of this Chamber. Australia has a federal system. The written Constitution, laboured over by the founding fathers almost 100 years ago, is essential to define the powers and authority of the Federal and State governments. The Commonwealth Constitution has been defined as our supreme law. For the purpose of this debate I should refer to two articles of the Constitution. Articles 61 and 62 read:


Page 6430

61. The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative . . .

62. There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General . . .

As Dean Jaensch points out:

According to the formal definition of Parliament in the Constitution then, the Parliament contains a Governor-General appointed by the Queen who then forms an Executive Council by appointing Ministers to advise him, from the Parliament which the people elect.

But how does this work in practice? The Queen does appoint the Governor-General to exercise her executive power, but the person is chosen by the Australian Government and only recommended to the Queen for her approval. Similarly in the States, the Governor is chosen by the State Government and then recommended to the Queen. Article 62 of the Constitution states:

. . . a Federal Executive Council . . . shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-General and . . . shall hold office during his pleasure.

The Ministers who form the Executive Council are chosen by the party or coalition which has a majority of seats in the lower House. These Ministers are chosen by the Prime Minister or Premier if there is a coalition government or elected by caucus if there is a Labor government. The role of Prime Minister is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is the Cabinet. I defy anyone to deny that major decisions are made by Cabinet. In practice, the decision-making body in government is Cabinet. It is not the Executive Council, even though it may later ratify decisions. It flies in the face of reason to suggest that it would not, because the same Cabinet Ministers are members of the Executive Council. Looking at the situation in a different way, the Westminster system requires that there is a non-elective and non-party political Head of State - in Britain the Queen and in Australia the Governor-General. It also requires the sovereignty of Parliament. The lower House is the House of the Government - the House to which the Government is responsible - and what the Government proposes, the Parliament legislates. Thus we find another fallacy: how can one regard the Parliament as sovereign when the Australian High Court has the authority to overrule any Act of any Australian Parliament? For example, the infamous Federal advertising ban legislation was challenged in the High Court. I am sure all members of the coalition Government in this Chamber hoped that the challenge would succeed. Of course, it did. If honourable members are to be realistic about the motion before the House they must accept Dean Jaensch's comment that in Australia governments operate upon - indeed are dependent upon - a whole constellation of conventions. I quote his words:

In the field of constitutional law they simply do not exist.

Dean Jaensch went on to make these comments:

The Westminster system is not a satisfactory model for the analysis of Australian Parliament. Its principles, practices and conventions were never fully incorporated in Australia. As well, the addition of the model of federalism - a division of powers before National and State Governments and Parliaments - introduced a new component to the Westminster system; one which not only changed the principles, practices and conventions, added more of each, but included structures and processes which were and are, alien to, and even contradict the Westminster model.

The result has been described as the Washminster mutation. Perhaps the first contradiction is the way the Senate was established. The Australian Senate was modelled on the American Senate as a fully elected House with equal representation from all States

Page 6431
and with equal powers. The Senate can veto any Act of the House of Representatives except the Appropriation Bill. The people's House, the House which is supposed to be the cornerstone of the Westminster system, can be checked in Australia and in New South Wales by the upper House. This is not the case in Britain. The House of Lords has strictly limited powers. It can delay legislation, but it cannot veto any Act of the House of Commons. There is another contradiction honourable members should remember: in Britain the Constitution lies in the aggregate of all Acts of Parliament. Therefore, the Constitution can be changed by a simple Act of Parliament. The Parliament is the sole authority.

In Australia a referendum is required to effect any change to the Constitution. Many referendums fail because they must be carried by a majority of States, not by a majority of the people of Australia. Other principles under the Australian system differ from the Westminster model. The Federal Constitution limits the powers of the national Parliament. Under article 51 the Federal Parliament can legislate only on a specific list of issues. Other issues are the sole responsibility of State Parliaments. Also, the prime function of the High Court of Australia is to arbitrate on cases concerning federalism. The court was specifically established with that power - it is the power that puts the court above the Parliament. If the founding fathers had not satisfied themselves that the division of powers - as jealously guarded today as they were 100 years ago - were not going to be subverted by any government, national or State, I doubt that federalism would have been achieved. In my opinion it is ridiculous to debate a motion which states that the Queen is essential to our Westminster system of government. The entire debate is based on a false premise. We do not have a Westminster system of government. Again I quote the words of Dean Jaensch:

Even if we pretend that the Westminster system is all things to all people, that depends on who you are asking to define it.

Professor Parker put it in these words:

Too many politicians, and particularly officials, hypocritically profess to live by the Westminster syndrome while making decisions in ways that pay no respect to it at all.

The source of that quote is Public Service Inquiries in Australia. This does not mean that we should not look for change. The Legislative Council has changed over the past 160 years. It has moved from being a colonial Legislative Council with Ministers, wearing a bizarre uniform, cocked hats and feathers, responsible to the colonial Governor. It is now a fully elected House of review with clearly defined constitutional powers that are far less disruptive of government than the powers of the Senate. It is almost 30 years since H. B. Turner told the story and added:

The alternative, in the Australian Parliament, would be to inscribe over the door of the Government Whip's office the words "rubber stamps available here".

Both American and European academics have voiced the opinion that, if party discipline is applied absolutely, legislative voting will become totally redundant and an important mechanism of governmental accountability would be destroyed. Regrettably in Australia legislative voting is virtually redundant already in all lower Houses except in New South Wales. The power of the Independents in the Legislative Assembly is the most positive force towards responsible government. Those members of this House who still see stability in the position of the Queen through the Governor or through the Governor-General should consider this: the Governor or Governor-General is not elected by anyone, is accountable to no one and, therefore, is not responsible to anyone. I suggest
Page 6432
the following principles to those looking for a democratic relationship between the Head of State and the Parliament: governments to be appointed and dismissed only by the lower House of Parliament; a fixed-term parliament, so that the Head of State would have no powers in regard to summoning or dismissing a parliament; the Head of State should only act with the authority of government in all matters; and the duties of the Head of State should be ceremonial and advisory only. Once again I find myself in agreement with Dean Jaensch, who, in 1986 in a call for reform in his book Getting our Houses in Order, wrote:

We must abandon the myth of Westminster and demand "responsible government" - in the sense of governments acting in a responsible manner, and of Parliaments willing and able to ensure that they do. The hopes for reform rest with the people. Unless we indicate very strongly to our Members of Parliament that we demand something different, then nothing will happen. In the final analysis, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

Since then Independents and minor parties have gained strength, and I believe they will continue to gain strength and influence unless the old parties abandon the partisan confrontationist attitudes that now pass for political discussion. While researching these remarks I came across two salient quotations and was reminded of an Australian poem. The first quotation came from Winston Churchill, who wrote, "The longer you look back, the farther you can look forward". The second quotation, by Harold Macmillan of "the wind of change" fame was, "People don't realise that the Victorian age was simply an interruption in Britain's history". Of course, the poem is Banjo Paterson's "The Man from Snowy River". Perhaps the Australian-born members of this House who cling so proudly to royalist traditions would consider these words:

The narrow ways of English Folk
Are not for such as we
They bear the long-accustomed yoke
of staid conservancy;
But all our roads are new and strange,
And through our blood there runs
The vagabonding love of change
That drove us westward of the range
And westward of the suns

I believe we shall continue to change our parliamentary system. I hope that we shall strengthen and improve it. I want it to be more democratic, to be less corrupt and to lead to a fair and just society. But, whether Australia becomes a republic or remains a monarchy, the system must change. To tie the system to the monarchy is an unnecessary folly and one that I believe will be an impossibility.

The Hon. JUDITH WALKER [4.5]: I wish to contribute to this debate. It will probably surprise my Labor colleagues to find that though I believe this country will eventually move towards a republic in due course, a number of people feel significant ties to England and to the monarchy. Until such time as some of our returned soldiers, who wear their badges with pride, disappear from the scene - probably along with me and others of my age - I believe Australia should retain its links with the monarchy. At the same time I understand that Australia has to come out from underneath its English history, because all Australians are not represented by English history. That is just a fact of life. There must be an evolution in time of all things, and that includes this country moving to a republic. Whether that happens in 2001 or 2010 remains to be seen. There is a lot of feeling outside the walls of this Chamber for the monarchy. In recent times the monarchy has had torrid treatment time in the press, and I hold the view that the press treats it with contempt. I certainly would not want to be the Queen or a princess for a day. They have a difficult, demanding and punishing lifestyle.

Page 6433

If people had to put up with the discipline of being a monarch in today's times, they would not be so eager to criticise the monarchy and the role they play. The monarchy has stabilised England, Scotland and Wales for a long period. One recalls the time in British history when Charles I lost his head. Cromwell took over and, though he was trying to defend England and its monarchy, in some ways he displayed contempt for the Parliament he was supposed to be supporting, and England reverted to the monarchy and the Westminster system. I believe that was a good thing. Over the years the English people have paid the Queen and certain relatives from the Civil List. It is a decision of the British Parliament to make those payments. I understand that in these modern times discussions have been held between the British Prime Minister, Mr Major, and the Queen to the effect that certain people should be removed from the Civil List and that the British Royal Family must cut its coat according to its cloth, as these are recessionary times for everyone.

I congratulate the republican movement for getting under way, bringing its role to the attention of everyone in Australia, and signalling clearly that Australia should eventually have its own identity and its own flag. However, republicanism should not be thrust upon the people; it should follow attitudinal change and a spelling out of the reasons that Australia should make its own stand in the complex, modern world in which we live. A few months ago there was a very much publicised television dust-up between Ron Casey, a radio announcer from 2KY, and Normie Rowe, a singer and actor. Ron Casey and Normie Rowe were not scheduled to appear that day. Rather I and my youngest son, Christopher Walker were to appear - I in virtual opposition to him. However, the firm for whom my son worked would not allow him to appear on the show, so we had to ring the television station and apologise. I said, "I will come along anyway, if you would like". I was told, "Give us half an hour or so and we will ring you back". They rang me back and said, "No, it is okay. Normie Rowe and Ron Casey will appear". The rest is history. I am rather glad that it was not me or one of my sons who was involved in the dust-up.

It is strange that of my six children it is my youngest son who is the standard- bearer for royalty. He attended Cleveland Street Public School, so one asks the question: why would someone who has attended Cleveland Street Public School all his school life suddenly emerge as a standard-bearer for royalty? He is the youngest member of the Royal Commonwealth Society. Honourable members may see him sometimes when he comes into the Parliament. He wears a Royal Commonwealth Society tie and is very much a part of the society. He is the only one of my children who is a royalist, which proves that it is possible for families to generate royalists, Liberals, National Party supporters, and all sorts of people. We do not all think the same. I sincerely hope that eventually the republicans will achieve what can only be the right thing for Australia, but not, as I said earlier, by bullying tactics or by believing that they are right and everyone else is wrong. The republican movement should be teaching that there is room for change and that Australia should be seeking to move away from the monarchy; it should not rubbish the existing constitutional monarchy, because it does nothing for us as parliamentarians, nor does it uphold the Westminster system.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Judith Walker.