Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

No, not me, as a Catholic—or my sons. It is, however, an important piece of legislation in two respects. It removes existing common-law discrimination on the basis of sex—and signs and symbols are important, as I will touch on in a minute—and it removes a little bit of the existing religious discrimination. The signs and symbols are important today because contemporary Australia at the moment is looking at domestic violence. We have seen this year that Rosie Batty, an incredibly brave Australian who has endured every mother's worst nightmare, has been made an Australian of the year, to put extra attention on domestic violence. Sadly, we still have that horrific data that nearly two women a week are losing their lives this year because of domestic violence. Just looking at the papers today, those numbers are still incredibly high.

So, signs and symbols: this piece of legislation before the chamber is only one part of changing what modern-day Australia says should be appropriate. But it is important in that context of some domestic violence challenges. The Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland, headed by Dame Quentin Bryce, recently released a report, Not now, not ever: putting an end to domestic and family violence in Queensland. The importance of gender equality is repeated throughout that report by Quentin Bryce. It is a wonderful report. It says:

Effective change cannot be achieved unless each and every one of us takes a personal interest and engages in promoting healthy and non-violent relationships in our homes, schools, and the broader community. In doing this, we also need to address the underlying attitudes and cultural beliefs that perpetuate gender inequality and socialisation that leads to violence against women and children.

So, this legislation before the chamber—as I said, not particularly connected with goings on in my electorate or around modern-day Australia—does send an important message about gender equality. It has been a long time coming, obviously, but it does send a message. A common-law doctrine that has been in place for centuries that younger sons are promoted over older daughters in the line of succession has been discarded in favour of gender equality, placing every child born in the line of succession, whether boy or girl, on an equal footing in their place of succession.

It is an attitudinal change, and I commend the British parliament for making it. However, it is still telling a story that is anachronistic—an incremental change in an anachronistic institution—which is why I was so glad to hear the Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable Bill Shorten, restate Labor's commitment to having a republic. But, returning to the report by Dame Quentin Bryce, it demonstrates an attitudinal change about advocating to prevent domestic violence, especially coming from someone like Quentin Bryce who (a) is a Queenslander—and, sadly, Queensland at the moment has a horrible record of domestic violence in terms of murders of partners—and (b) for a time was the Queen's representative in Australia as our Governor-General. And she is now also able to advocate so strongly to prevent domestic violence.

The second important message that this legislation sends is that religious discrimination is no longer acceptable. As I said, it has not totally eliminated discrimination, but it does start people talking. In Queensland the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of religious belief or religious activity. Queenslanders are used to religious discrimination being unacceptable. And while the Commonwealth has laws to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race, such as the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act, currently there are no Commonwealth laws preventing discrimination on the grounds of religion. Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed in 1966. Article 18 of that convention in part states:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

Although the protocol was dated 13 August 1980, no Commonwealth legislation has yet been enacted to reflect those obligations.

Societal attitudes do change. Monarchs were once allowed not only to marry Catholics but also in fact to be Catholics themselves. Henry VIII was a champion of the Catholic Church—until he said farewell to it. James I, Charles I and Charles II were all married to Catholics. Charles II converted to Catholicism on his deathbed. It was an English act of 1689 that provided that the monarch could not be a Catholic or be married to a Catholic. So, even in 2015 the Australian head of state—the monarch, Queen Elizabeth II—cannot actually be a Catholic. As the monarch is the head of the Anglican Church it is as important for him or her to be an Anglican as it is for the Pope to be a Catholic. However, it is certainly progress to overturn a law that for 326 years has discriminated against a future monarch on the basis of the religion of their spouse. It is an important statement to the world and the dominions that it is not okay to discriminate on the basis of anyone's religion. As I said, it is an incremental step.

Labor supports these reforms. Labor is committed to gender equality and religious freedom. Queen Elizabeth II is Australia's formal head of state, and I think in September this year she will be the longest-serving monarch. Since 1953 she has had the title of Queen of Australia. The Governor-General is the Queen's representative in Australia, although the Governor-General holds some powers in his or her own right that cannot be used by the Queen. The dismissal of the Whitlam government was a classic example of that power and of where the Queen could not intervene in the actions of the Governor-General, although that is an argument that still creates a bit of interest amongst constitutional lawyers. The importance of the Queen's role in contemporary Australia is a matter that politicians will never all agree on, and various governments have put more or less emphasis on that role. Obviously the Labor Party is committed to a republic.

Our current Prime Minister clearly places great emphasis on the importance of the monarchy, as we might recall, famously bestowing the great honour of Knight of the Order of Australia upon the Queen's husband, Prince Philip. The previous Liberal National Party government in Queensland—now replaced by progressive Premier Palaszczuk—although only serving one term, went to great lengths to show their allegiance to the Queen. In a cringing display of extreme lickspittleness—if that is a word—the Liberal National Party government changed the Queensland government logo back to the coat of arms granted by Queen Victoria to the state of Queensland in 1893. They named the new Supreme Court building the Queen Elizabeth II Courts of Law. They returned the Queen's Birthday holiday to the traditional but completely insignificant June date. They changed the historically significant 1 May Labour Day public holiday to October. Ignoring the great tradition that labour has had in Queensland society, in a show of spite, they changed that May Day Labour Day holiday. They changed the barrister's title of Senior Counsel back to Queen's Counsel. Also, relevant to this legislation, the previous Queensland government insisted on passing their own legislation to ratify the changes to royal succession, despite the advice that was provided to them by the Commonwealth—a very strange course of behaviour by the former Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie.

Labor, on the other hand, would welcome debating legislation that would see an Australian head of state. I am sure Premier Palaszczuk is committed to that as well. While we appreciate the small reforms contained in this quite anachronistic bill, I hope that the positive messages that come from it will aid an attitudinal change about gender equality and religious discrimination.

I affirm again my commitment to Australia becoming a republic. The United Kingdom has been a republic. There was a time there, between 1649 and 1660, after King Charles I was executed, that Britain was a republic—for 11 years. Not that I am advocating anything quite so drastic with Queen Elizabeth II, but republics do work. The United States and many of our great trading nations are republics, and I think it is time for Australians to again grapple with the process for becoming a republic.

This is the longest time since Federation that Australia has gone without a referendum. The last time we had a referendum was 6 November 1999. I know that there are many on both sides of the chamber that are passionate about Australia becoming a republic, but obviously it is a bit hard to speak up in the coalition at the moment, with the leader being so committed to the Crown that he was able to defeat the now Minister for Communications in the republic referendum in 1999. We will see how that plays out in the next little while as the Minister for Communications learns how to do the numbers a bit more carefully when it comes to getting support for a republic.

This piece of legislation goes some small way to improving some anachronistic laws that do not reflect modern Australia; nevertheless I commend the legislation to the chamber.

See this speech in context