Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to support the Succession of the Crown Bill 2015 and I could not be at more variance than the previous speaker. In doing so, I make the observation that we are all witnessing firsthand the peaceful evolution of our constitutional customs and traditions, specifically to reform the historic rules of succession to the Crown in Australia. This modernisation of the laws of succession ensures the continued relevance of constitutional monarchy to Australia and its people, and reflects that commitment that all that all Australians have to equality and nondiscrimination.

We are proud today to be changing the laws of royal succession to reflect modern Australian values. This reform allows the Crown to better reflect our contemporary values while preserving the traditions of our constitutional monarchy. The rules of succession to the Crown have included two discriminatory provisions: firstly, that male siblings take precedence over female siblings, regardless of age; and, secondly, that a person may not marry a Roman Catholic and remain in line to assuming the Crown.

The historical context is critical if we are to properly understand the significance of the reforms. The rules of succession to the Crown derived from the Bill of Rights of 1689, the Act of Settlement of 1700 and the common law. They were designed to secure the Protestant succession and to prevent alliances with Catholic states and continental Europe as well as to further assert and entrench parliament's constitutional supremacy. They were born of political and religious strife of various historical periods. The combined effect was to secure the freedoms and status of parliament against the possibility of monarchical absolutism. It is valuable to acknowledge the supremacy of parliament in determining matters of succession to the Crown.

The reforms we are agreeing today have their genesis in the historic agreement reached in Perth at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in October 2011, where it was agreed that each of 16 Commonwealth nations of whom Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is head of state would the rules governing succession to their respective crowns. The agreement reached was to end male preference primogeniture where a younger son could displace an elder daughter in line of succession, to remove the legal provision that anyone who marries a Roman Catholic shall be ineligible to the Crown and to remove the general requirement for descendants of His Late Majesty George II to seek the sovereign's consent to marry.

This bill matches similar bills passed by each of the 16 realms of which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is head of state. In that vein it is worth noting the uniqueness of the Australian context. Our form follows from request and consent acts which have been passed by each of the six state parliaments over the last several months. The Commonwealth, states and territories and the Council of Australian Governments agreed to the reforms in July 2012 and agreed in April 2013 to implement them using a legislated consent and request approach relying on section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution. Under this approach each of the states pass legislation requesting that the Commonwealth enact legislation for the whole of Australia. All states' legislation needs to commence before the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia can enact the Commonwealth legislation. I note here that all states' legislation has now been commenced. The parliament of my home state of Western Australia was the last of the state parliaments to consider this matter and did it just recently. This approach befits the nature of our federation in that this manner of change should be cooperative rather than through imposition of a law made by the federal parliament which may later lead to legal doubt.

It is timely to reflect on the issue of gender and the Crown given that some of the greatest occupants of the throne have in fact been women: Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria and our current sovereign, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The last two, of course, have been ever present in the birth and subsequent history of our modern Commonwealth. It was Queen Victoria who signed the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 and witnessed Federation on 1 January 1901 before her own death just 21 days later. And we can but be in awe of the tremendous service beyond self and conspicuous grace exhibited by our current sovereign since her accession to the throne in February 1952.

It should be acknowledged that the passage of this bill is taking place as we progress toward the anniversary and, I would hope, celebration of a most remarkable historical achievement. The two longest serving monarchs in the history of our crown have been women: Queen Victoria having been monarch for 63 years, seven months and two days; and Queen Elizabeth II, who in September this year with God's grace will pass her great-grandmother's record as the longest reigning monarch ever. Few will be surprised to hear me remark favourably and with thanks on the good fortune endured during this sovereign's reign—a reign marked by steadfastness and fierce political neutrality. The very fact that our democracy is one of the longest existing democracies in the world is a testament to the fact that the sinews of our system of government do not break under strain. They are supple and they flex to take account of modern needs.

I think it is important to give due recognition to the role played in these changes by two people in particular. The former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown was in many ways a significant driving force behind these changes. He told the House of Commons in 2009:

There are clearly issues about the exclusion of people from the rights of succession and there are clearly issues that have got to be dealt with. This is not an easy set of answers.

But I think in the 21st Century people do expect discrimination to be removed and they do expect us to be looking at all these issues.

The other figure I wish to recognise in playing a significant role is—and I do this genuinely and graciously—the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who rightly said that just because the changes appear simple 'doesn't mean that we should underestimate their historical significance,' changing as they will for all time the way in which the monarchy works and changing its history. In many respects, by supporting this bill today we are active contributors to a reform we will likely never witness.

In conclusion, I reflect on the value of constitutional monarchy in Australia. I would like to quote from The Australian, no less, in its editorial noting the diamond jubilee of our current sovereign. It said:

As Queen, Elizabeth's skills in transcending politics while counselling to 12 British prime ministers, from Winston Churchill to David Cameron, and presiding over an often fractious Commonwealth have demonstrated the stable benefits of constitutional monarchy. In more capricious hands the story might have been very different. While remaining apolitical, the Queen's advocacy of tolerance and social cohesion and support for those who are suffering has made her an influence for good.

Finally, of course, the comments of the very eminent Australian, esteemed jurist Michael Kirby:

The countries of the world that tend to be the most liberal, secular and tolerant happen to be constitutional monarchies: the UK, Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain. That may be just an accident, but I doubt it. The system puts in place a person whose life must be one of service. As well, it avoids the head of state problem: leaders who get carried away with their own importance. It keeps out of the top jobs rather unlovely characters. The constitutional monarchy is a core principle in the Australian Constitution.

All senators who support this bill can be justly proud of playing a small part in this unique but historical piece of constitutional evolution.