Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every Australia Day we are assailed by a predictable chorus of voices reigniting the monarchy-versus-republic debate. The shiny bauble attracting media attention this year was a freshly signed letter by several state premiers supporting the Australian Republican Movement. But the fact that the premiers signed the letter personally rather than as leaders on behalf of their parliamentary parties was not well reported. When South Australian Labor Premier Jay Weatherill was asked, 'What sort of republican model do you have in mind?' he replied, 'I haven't directed my mind to that.' Isn't that the key point? If you are selling a car, people are entitled to know what sort of car.

Putting aside for a moment whether you support the monarchy or a republic, there is already a gold standard built into our Constitution for changing it. It is called a referendum and it was designed to protect the interests of Tasmania and the other smaller states. A majority of people in a majority of states must support any change, and at least one of the smaller states must join with the three largest states for any constitutional change to succeed.

A plebiscite, on the other hand, is a non-binding poll where a simple majority of voters determine the result. We had one in 1977 when the Fraser government proposed a plebiscite on a national song. While it is defensible to choose a national song by this method, a plebiscite in the context of the monarchy-versus-republic debate is another word for overruling smaller states like Tasmania. The reason for that is that enrolment figures from the Australian Electoral Commission show that the number of voters in New South Wales and Victoria is more than the total number in all other states combined. A plebiscite could therefore potentially override voter sentiment in the smaller states. It is simply not good enough to say, as the Australian Republican Movement's national chairman does, that we should make a change by enhancing the voting authority of the bigger states over the smaller states and let's worry about the detail later. Australians are not mugs. They will only support change when they are convinced of two things: it is a necessity, and the consequences of the change have been thoroughly scrutinised.

It is also worth noting that the coalition has a proud record in our evolving relationship with the Crown. Robert Menzies initiated two crucial pieces of legislation: the Royal Style and Titles Act and the Royal Powers Act, both of 1953. And 33 years later the Australia Act 1986 was implemented. The Royal Style and Titles Act made clear that the Queen was the Queen of Australia. Menzies initiated the Royal Powers Act after doubts were raised about whether the Queen, who was about to visit Australia for the first time, had any powers at all with the Governor-General in place. The Royal Powers Act allowed Her Majesty to open the federal parliament, chair a meeting of the Executive Council, assent to laws and make regulations. The final piece of this puzzle was the Australia Act 1986. Section 7 deserves much greater attention because it makes clear that the functions of the monarch in a state can only be exercised by the Governor of the state unless the monarch is physically present. These three pieces of legislation make it clear that, apart only from the appointment of the Governor-General and state governors—on which of course the Queen always acts consistently with the advice of the Australian Prime Minister or the respective Premier—everything else in relation to the government of Australia is already done by Australians.

While the Queen is our formal head of state, the Governor-General is our executive head of state. Menzies and his legal advisers knew this back in 1953, which is precisely why the Royal Powers Act was passed. The esteemed constitutional scholar Sir Zelman Cowen had no doubt that the Australian monarchy was a separate and distinct institution from that of Great Britain.

Former High Court Justice Michael Kirby said:

… given that we have in Australia in all truth a crowned republic ... [why] inflict upon our country the wound of a divisive debate about a republican form of government?

Cowen and Kirby were right. The Prime Minister is also absolutely right when he points to the dangers of prematurely reopening this debate, which risks dividing, rather than uniting, Australians. Given that we are already an independent, proud and confident nation with laws made by Australian representatives and signed into effect by Australians, more and more Australians are asking the obvious question: what is all the fuss about?'