Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on this motion, taking note of its rather odd timing given that Australia's support for moving to a republic is currently at a 20-year low and an impending royal visit is in its final planning stages. Roy Morgan polling shows support for an Australian republic at its lowest since the push for a local as our head of state built up steam in the first half of the nineties. Only 34 per cent of Australians aged over 14 support a republic—the lowest level since 1991. The Morgan figures indicate young Australians are just as keen on the monarchy as their older compatriots.

Many republicans object to heredity being the basis of any power in the state, and understandably so. Such monarchical powers are listed sonorously in textbooks, yet they are a matter of form rather than reality. The supposed power of a constitutional monarch to summon parliament and appoint a prime minister or member of parliament is a mechanical device that treats the monarch merely as the state anthropomorphised. Were the Queen to behave as if the implied discretion were real, her office would instantly crumble. The last time a prime minister was chosen by the monarch against the wish of the British parliament was in 1832, at the height of the reform crisis. When William IV asked the Duke of Wellington to form a government, the old soldier, reactionary as he was, eventually had to concede that those days were over. Later crises have all been resolved by constitutional protocols and the arithmetic of parliament.

As we can observe from the previous parliament, hung parliaments are much enjoyed by political historians, when the will of the people, and thus of the electorate, is not necessarily clear-cut, and so a superior office is needed as referee. What happens, for example, when the largest party cannot win the House of Representatives support? The answer lies in the huddle of crown officers, constitutional lawyers and parliamentary leaders that gather at such times. It does not lie in the untrammelled discretion of a hereditary monarch.

A modern monarch, just like any other head of state, is also expected to work. Should anyone doubt this, I challenge them to spend a day in the company of Her Majesty and see who retires first. De Gaulle might have described the job as being about 'blessing chrysanthemums', but the reality of a nation state is that someone must bless them, and it is a waste of time for a chief executive. The strain is well known on the French and American presidencies, which combine party leadership and executive office with head of state. The American president is estimated to spend at least half of his time on ceremonial and related duties which in Britain are not only delegated to the monarch but across an entire extended family. This is not just a matter of a constant, often tedious round of celebrating, rewarding, consoling, receiving and entertaining as much as a thousand times a year by some member of the royal family; it is a matter of those tasks being done by someone who represents the nation as a whole.

Two things go without saying. One is that the heredity principle will always be subject to performance, as it was in the 17th century. It would not survive an idiot or a criminal, or a holder who blatantly abused the dignified status of monarch. The solution of such a crisis is hard to script, but a solution there would be. Can any monarch ever hope to be proof against reform? The steamroller of human rights law is already bearing down on it. In 1998, a private member's bill in the British parliament questioning the principle of male succession led to the Labour government agreeing to take the matter forward.

All nations have elements of magic, myth and ceremony as part of their processes. These may reside in palaces and churches, museums and galleries, rituals and traditions. Hereditary monarchy is a spectacular embellishment, but in the same category. We would not invent it if it did not exist, but only because its essence lies in encapsulating a nation's continuity over time, which a family is uniquely positioned to do. One should not try to justify this, but politics is about more than reason. Where monarchy exists, as in Britain, Australia and all Commonwealth nations, it carries advantages. Just as a monarch is lucky in inheriting the throne, so a nation is sometimes fortunate to inherit a monarch.

See this speech in context