Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I withdraw. None of my prejudices, feelings, likes or dislikes are relevant—and Keating said it best:

… we are all Australians. We share a continent. We share a past, a present and a future. And our Head of State should be one of us.

It's a simple proposition with broad support but devilishly hard to achieve, because republicans are split on the mode of appointment.

Two asides. I don't believe we should have a president; we should stick with the Governor-General—no confusion with the US system or an executive presidency, and don't change system of government. And there should be a constitutional ban on any member of parliament becoming Governor-General, and on a Governor-General ever being elected to a parliament. But the way forward is unclear. It is important, though, that we keep debating it and thinking about it. The Labor Party took to the last election a three-stage process: a yes/no plebiscite, choose a model and then put a question. It had merit; it was respectful and deliberative.

But I want to record also my appreciation of a powerful and provocative speech last week by Malcolm Turnbull, with a different idea. It was the old Malcolm. If only he gave that speech when he was Prime Minister! His proposition was two stages: go straight to choosing the model through a year of community debate, then a binding plebiscite: parliamentary appointment or direct election. Then develop the winning model in detail and put it to a referendum. It has a lot going for it, and it's worth seriously considering. It cuts to the chase. And, as Malcolm said, he's had 20 years to reflect on the failure of his '99 referendum, and he believes this is the way forward. It would decrease the risk of failure and division on the threshold question, and I think we can confidently assume broad support, subject to the model. It cuts waste and time, therefore. The education and deliberative phase also maximises the chances of rejection of an Americanisation of our system with direct election: the true—I believe the real—politicians' republic.

There is a risk, though, in what Malcolm proposes, and that's the dangerous assumption that people who vote for the minimalist model in the first ballot would vote for it in the second, and that's risky. The truth is: it's risky. Malcolm says he's an Elizabethan—that is, that this debate must wait until the Queen dies. I'm not an Elizabethan myself; however, I'd float a radical proposition which true Elizabethan republicans would back. This parliament should seriously examine a different and an easier way, which may well be legal.

We should look at amending the act of succession, which currently provides for Her Majesty's heirs and successors to succeed her as head of state. I believe that we should explore amending this so that, when the Queen dies, the current Governor-General simply becomes our head of state, to serve no more than five years, with a successor appointed by the Chief Justice of the High Court on advice of both houses of parliament with a two-thirds vote. In doing so, it should be legislated that there would then be a constitutional convention for the nation to work through carefully the future method of appointment. Direct election, parliamentary appointment or otherwise could be explored with the people in a sober, serious way without disrespecting the current Queen or being lumbered with the nonsense of King Charles III. If we have to, amend the law to make the Governor-General the Queen—put him in drag, if needed!—as long as our head of state is an Australian.

Mr Hawke interjecting—

See this speech in context