Tuesday, 15 August 2023

Bills

Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Danny Pearson:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (17:34): It is a pleasure to rise on the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023. I have to say this is the first bill I have had responsibility for, and it is an exciting one to start with. The Leader of the House did say she was looking forward to an exciting debate on this, an interesting debate, and I think we will be able to do that today. I am not sure that I will be able to fulfil the full 30 minutes, but I will certainly give it a go.

This bill should be a straightforward matter of legislative housekeeping to ensure that all laws in this place in Victoria make correct references to the sovereign following the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 in relation to references to the sovereign and to amend the statute law of Victoria to revise language referring to ‘the Queen’ and ‘Her Majesty’ as a consequence of the death of Queen Elizabeth II. Following the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the accession of His Majesty King Charles III as head of state, Victoria’s statute book requires amendment to reference ‘His Majesty’ where previously ‘Her Majesty’ was referenced.

Can I take this opportunity, given the impetus for this bill, to acknowledge the legacy of Queen Elizabeth II, a pillar of strength and a constant for many of us. Her unwavering grace and dignity provided strength and hope to millions throughout a period of great change and turmoil. Her Majesty’s contribution to Australia, to the Commonwealth and beyond will forever be revered.

Back to the bill at hand: while the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 does provide that references in legislation to the sovereign are ‘to the Sovereign for the time being’, the actual wording of each statute on its face is still incorrect. Therefore these amendments are meant to ensure that the state’s laws remain relevant and accurate. Unfortunately, this bill goes well beyond this simple remit, a point I will return to shortly.

The bill updates Victorian laws to replace ‘Her Majesty’ with ‘His Majesty’ as well as other similar terms and references, such as ‘Her’ to ‘His’ and ‘Queen’ to ‘King’. I should note that the bill will update 38 acts but does not propose to update a number of provisions in the Constitution Act 1975 due to the need for compliance with important manner and form passage requirements in the constitution. These include the need for a referendum to amend some provisions and absolute majority and special majority passage requirements to amend other provisions. These provisions are expected to be updated at the next available opportunity when there is a future change to similar provisions in the constitution. In the meantime the principles in the Interpretation of Legislation Act will apply to those provisions to ensure they are read as being references to His Majesty.

If all that this bill did was ensure Victoria’s laws remain relevant and accurate, it would be a simple piece of legislative housekeeping. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The bill goes quite a bit further than the points I have just outlined, and the government has not provided an adequate explanation as to why. In fact this bill seeks to effect a significant shift in the way in which the sovereign is referenced in the state of Victoria. A number of the amendments to the Interpretation of Legislation Act and the state laws of Victoria that are contained in this bill appear to remove references to the sovereign for no valid reason. I say there is no valid reason to alter or remove references to the sovereign because last time I checked Australia remains a constitutional monarchy and any future change to our system of government is a matter for the Australian people. It is not a matter for the Andrews Labor government to unilaterally alter our statute books.

I do accept that some of the amendments contained in this bill are necessary and reflect the need to modernise Victoria’s statute books – for example, the removal of references to the term ‘esquire’, which is no longer in use – but this bill contains many amendments that seek to alter historically significant connections between the sovereign and our legal system. For example, in the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General Act 1972 the bill does not replace the formal titles of ‘Her Majesty’s Attorney-General’ and ‘Her Majesty’s solicitor-general’ with ‘His Majesty’s Attorney-General’ and ‘His Majesty’s solicitor-general’ respectively. In fact it removes the references to the sovereign altogether so that the roles are simply referred to as ‘the Attorney-General’ and ‘the solicitor-general’. Further, it replaces ‘Her Majesty’ with ‘the Crown in right of Victoria’ in reference to the functions of the solicitor-general. As you can see from these examples, these are not simple like-for-like substitutions. It is a similar story in the Crown Proceedings Act 1958, where again the full title of the sovereign is removed and not replaced with a reference to King Charles III.

I understand that many of those opposite wish for Australia to become a republic, but unfortunately for them Australians are at best divided over the issue, with a Guardian Essential poll taken after Queen Elizabeth’s passing suggesting a 50–50 split on the issue of supporting King Charles as Australia’s head of state. Of course the last time Australians were directly asked the question in a referendum back in 1999 the answer was a resounding no, although I do not accept that in our state of Victoria the majority voted yes some 24 years ago. But the statute laws of Victoria are not the place for the Andrews Labor government to express their republican fervour or the desire for an Australian head of state. It is not for the Labor Party to dilute or diminish the role of the sovereign across Victoria’s statute books.

I will give you two more examples of this overreach. In the Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances and Superannuation Act 1968, this bill again removes ‘Her Majesty’s’ in reference to the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Where previously they were referred to as ‘Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition’ and ‘Deputy Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition’, this bill simply removes the references to the sovereign completely. If it was a matter of simple legislative housekeeping, the reference to ‘Her Majesty’ would simply be swapped for ‘His Majesty’. Removing the reference is a very pointed way to remove the historical and legal connection between the sovereign and members of Parliament.

Perhaps even more significantly, the bill changes the words in the oath of affirmation given by police officers, protective services officers and special constables as they are contained in the Victoria Police Act 2013. The bill amends all three oaths to omit all references to ‘Lady the Queen’ and substitutes all references to ‘Her Majesty’s peace’ with ‘the peace’. This is a significant symbolic change and will result in officers taking a different oath to those that have come before them, despite no change to our system of government actually taking place.

Again, these are changes that seek to diminish the role of the sovereign in our political and legal system. Sure, the Andrews Labor government may think these references to the monarchy are old-fashioned, but the fact is Australia remains a constitutional monarchy and will remain one until such time as the majority of Australians in a majority of states express their will for a change in a referendum. The reason that these decisions must be taken in a referendum is because changing our constitution is not something that should be done lightly. Changing our foundational document is significant, and a robust, productive and respectful debate is an important part of our democracy. We cannot simply wish the role of the sovereign away because we consider it inconvenient or cumbersome to reference it in our statute books. Modern legal drafting practice, as has been described to me by the government, is not an excuse to diminish the role of the sovereign, which is still currently fulfilled by the monarch.

Now, I will be honest with you: my enthusiasm for Australia’s system of constitutional monarchy is significantly boosted by knowing that Prince William and Princess Kate are the next in line for the throne. Their grace and humanity are plain to see, and Australia could do far worse than having Prince William as our head of state in the future. The reality is that systems of government do matter. Constitutional stability really does matter. Equality before the law, the separation of church and state, the common law system and liberal democracy – these are all the foundations upon which modern Australia has been built, and we have inherited them by virtue of our deep and ongoing connection to the Commonwealth. To seek to whittle that connection away without the direct affirmation of the Australian people that they wish that connection to be ceased is legislative overreach on the part of the Andrews Labor government. It is for that reason that I move:

That all the words after ‘that’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government has provided clarity on the rationale of the amending provisions’.

Also under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request that they be circulated.

Amendments circulated under standing orders.

Jess WILSON: Also being circulated with the reasoned amendment are the simple textual amendments to this bill that seek to limit it to its true intention. My amendments seek to update the bill to reflect what should have been brought before this Parliament – a simple substitution of terms to reflect the accession of King Charles III in our statute books. If this bill is passed with the amendments, I move it will be in keeping with its true intent, which is a straightforward matter of legislative housekeeping to ensure all laws in this place in Victoria make correct references to the sovereign following the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The relevant acts will be amended only insofar as to switch references to ‘Her Majesty’ and ‘His Majesty’ like for like.

I strongly encourage those opposite to consider supporting the amendments. I will remind them that Australia’s constitutional monarchy is no less current or valid as a result of the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, which was the trigger event for the introduction of the bill. If they cannot support these amendments, they need to ask themselves why. Do they object so strenuously to our current system of government, as affirmed by the Australian people at the last referendum, that they feel the need to chip away at it from behind the scenes in our statute books?

We do not need to shy away from the fact that Australia is a constitutional monarchy and that we are part of the Commonwealth. Our system of constitutional monarchy has allowed us to maintain remarkably stable government in our country, and we have all benefited from the rule of law, from liberal democracy and from free markets, the great living legacies of the Westminster system. Being part of the Commonwealth is a foundational element of Australia’s political heritage, and it should not be swept under the rug under the guise of modern drafting practices. As Dan Hannan wrote in his book Inventing Freedom:

Elected parliaments, habeas corpus, free contract, equality before the law, open markets, an unrestricted press … jury trials: these things are not somehow the natural condition of an advanced society. They are specific products of a political ideology developed in the language in which you are reading these words. The fact that those ideas, and that language, have become so widespread can make us lose sight of how exceptional they were in origin.

In other words, the Westminster institutions we have inherited are in large part a pivotal factor in Australia’s success story. All the things we are rightly proud of in Australia – equality before the law, religious pluralism and freedom of expression and from tyranny – are no happy accident, but rather the enduring legacy of all Commonwealth nations. Indeed being part of the Commonwealth remains key to our continued economic growth. Lundan and Jones first documented what they termed the ‘Commonwealth effect’ in 2001. They describe the Commonwealth effect as the high propensity, on behalf of Commonwealth member nations, to trade and invest with each other, meaning that the Commonwealth as a set of institutions and traditions can add economic value. So as well as our institutional and political heritage our constitutional monarchy and our membership of the Commonwealth continue to lend very relevant advantages to Australia today. Unfortunately we will not be celebrating all that the Commonwealth has to offer, given the Andrews government’s cancellation of the Commonwealth Games.

It is legitimate for Victoria’s statute book to be updated to reflect the accession of King Charles III. In the main the bill reflects good legislative housekeeping. It is also an important opportunity to appropriately modernise language no longer in use. However, it is not appropriate to dilute references to the sovereign or remove references to the sovereign in entirety. There should be a simple substitution of terms, and my proposed amendments reflect the true intention of the bill. If the government cannot support the bill with the amendments, the Liberal–National coalition will be voting against this bill for going well beyond its stated remit. Once again, I encourage those opposite to reflect on why they have felt the need to turn what should have been a straightforward piece of legislative housekeeping into an attempt to diminish our system of constitutional monarchy.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (17:48): It is a pleasure to rise on the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023, and methinks the opposition doth protest too much in their accusation that somehow this bill is an attempt to substantively reform Victoria’s system of government. As the member for Kew rightly said, constitutional arrangements for this country are entirely and properly a matter for the Commonwealth and the people of Australia, given our constitutional arrangements and the need for referenda to alter those.

Language evolves and changes. The provisions in this bill in no way change the arrangements of a standing official opposition. It was Sir John Hobhouse in 1826 who first coined the phrase in the Westminster Parliament of ‘His Majesty’s Opposition’. Before that the term had not been in use. Language evolves and changes, and appositely, I think, the first time that phrase was used it was met with laughter in the House of Commons, much as the accusation against the government that somehow we are clandestinely reforming and destroying ancient systems of government through this bill has been met with today. The nature of official opposition has also changed – the clarification of that sort of contrast between treason and opposition was a relatively recent development. In the 17th century, civil wars were fought over the premise that one could not oppose the monarch, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the changes to the Westminster system of government through the 18th century led to a situation where an opposition could oppose the government without it being construed as a treasonous act that opposed the body of the Crown.

The point of this is that language evolves. I wish to take some exception to the comments of members on both sides during the government business program earlier today that this is somehow an irrelevant bill and not in any way interesting. I could not disagree more. It is an extraordinarily interesting bill that does chart changes in language and social norms and customs and our institutions over time.

Members interjecting.

Iwan WALTERS: Extraordinarily, member for Albert Park. And I would, member for Sandringham. It may not make profound changes to the lives of Victorians, as I believe the member for Monbulk may have said earlier, but it does capture profound changes which have taken place in Victoria over the life and long reign of the late Queen.

I just want to go back to the original purpose of the bill momentarily and to reassert that the bill does amend references in Victorian legislation from ‘Her Majesty’ to ‘His Majesty’ and other similar terms following the death of Queen Elizabeth and the assumption of the throne by King Charles III. There have only been four occasions in modern Victorian history when the gender of the sovereign has changed following the death of the monarch: in 1837, when Queen Victoria assumed the throne, I think after her uncle William IV died; when Edward VII assumed the throne in 1901; when Queen Elizabeth assumed the throne in 1952; and then 70 years later, in September of last year, when King Charles assumed the throne on the death of his mother. It would be, as some have suggested, easier to simply switch to non-personalised, non-specific, non-genderised language and include simply references to the sovereign and the Crown. However, that would actually create a lot more difficulty; because the Crown can refer to the person of the monarch as well as the Crown in light of Victoria, not all references to Her Majesty in the 35 acts that this bill seeks to amend can be so easily altered.

I do want to touch upon that point of language, and I think the bill does give us an insight into the language of an earlier era. Those terms like ‘Our Lady the Queen’ in the Crown Proceedings Act 1958 is replaced simply with ‘the King’ to reflect and better capture the relationship that citizens have with their government and that that kind of florid, obsequious language probably does not play a role in the lives of Victorians today. It does not mean that this bill is somehow a clandestine republican plot in disguise, but it does I think capture modern evolution in language – as I say, as language has always evolved and as institutions of government within the Westminster system have always evolved, so that when Sir John Hobhouse in 1826 made that first reference to the official opposition, it was deemed so shocking as to warrant laughter in the House of Commons. These things evolve in time; it does not alter the concept of an official standing opposition and its important role within our parliamentary system and our constitutional system, whereby there is an opposition that forms a core part of our parliamentary processes. But it does mean that changes in language and changes in social norms are properly captured in a way that renders them relevant to Victorians.

I was really struck, in reading this bill – as I know members were in many areas – particularly by the changes to the Veterans Act 2005 and to the Shrine of Remembrance Act 1978 and the reminder that our armed forces were referred to as ‘Her Majesty’s naval, military and air forces’. Obviously the change will be made to ensure that they are called ‘His Majesty’s naval, military and air forces’. It is a reminder of how our parliamentary democracy has evolved since the 17th century and the English Civil War, when the person of the monarch was so inextricably linked with the armed forces.

Now, in a titular sense, that relationship still exists. There is still a personal and, one could say, de jure relationship between the head of state and the armed forces. But because of changes to our system of government, Parliament and the people are sovereign – sovereign with a small ‘s’, not the Sovereign with a capital ‘S’. The sovereign is vested with vast powers, which in Victoria are obviously exercised by the Governor in Council, and at a national level by the Governor-General. In Victoria’s case, it is upon the advice of her ministers, which reflects those changes over time – that Parliament is sovereign, that the people are sovereign, that the people and Parliament fundamentally exercise the power and the decision-making over the armed forces, that it is a civilian-led military. However, it is interesting to recall the history and the origins of those terms and the fact there is still that enduring link between the monarch and the armed forces. It is captured in the Shrine of Remembrance Act 1978 and the Veterans Act 2005.

I had the opportunity to be at the Shrine last Tuesday for a commemorative service that remembered the service and sacrifice of many thousands of Australians on the Western Front at the Battle of Amiens in 1918. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of all of those at the Shrine of Remembrance – its trustees sustain the memory of every single Victorian, and indeed Australian, who has ever served in a conflict and also in peacekeeping service. But it did also prompt me to think: why did Australians serve in the Great War? Was it that concept of king and country, which is arguably captured in that terminology in the 2005 Veterans Act and the 1978 Shrine of Remembrance Act?

One of the profound challenges for historians of the First World War is to understand how and why so many Victorians volunteered with such alacrity at the outset of war and served with distinction overseas in a voluntary capacity. It was almost never questioned that Australia would join the First World War when Britain did – when the Empire, as it was, went to war there was no distinction. But within two short years of August 1914 those questions around motivation and the role of government and the relationship between the people and their government really came to the fore, in Victoria most notably of all Australian states, through the conscription debates of 1916, when, as those on this side of the house will be all too aware, our party split in one of the great fissures of 20th-century Australian politics, with lasting consequences. But the essence of those referenda – they were binding plebiscites rather than referenda because they did not effect constitutional change – was that it was not right for men and women to be conscripted to potentially, and in some cases in all likelihood, lose their lives when capital was not being conscripted in the same way. It was also of course overlaid by the politics of Ireland at the time.

I invoke these examples just to show how language does evolve over time. This bill has been worked through very carefully by the minister’s team. It does affect, as I say, 35 separate pieces of existing legislation. A lot of care and effort has gone into the drafting of this bill just to ensure that it does not substantively change any of the constitutional arrangements of Victoria but that it does modernise language, that it makes sure that it is contemporaneous and relevant to modern Victoria.

Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (17:59): I rise today to speak on the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 and to amend the statute law of Victoria to revise language and references to the sovereign as a consequence of the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.

During the more than 70-year historic reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, much of Victoria’s statute law referenced ‘Her Majesty’ or similar terms. With the accession of His Majesty King Charles III as head of state, these references now require amendment. The bill will update Victorian laws to replace ‘Her Majesty’ with ‘His Majesty’ and similar terms such as ‘her’ to ‘him’ and ‘Queen’ to ‘King’ as relevant. This bill should be a straightforward piece of legislative housekeeping. However, the amendments contained within it go beyond this original remit and intention. The coalition is moving a series of amendments to this bill to bring it back to its original intent.

The member for Kew has clearly outlined the many issues within the bill and that Labor appears to have seen this bill as an opportunity to diminish the role of the monarch as our sovereign. As an example, in the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General Act 1972, the bill does not replace the formal titles of Her Majesty’s Attorney-General and Her Majesty’s solicitor-general with His Majesty’s Attorney-General and His Majesty’s solicitor-general respectively. In fact it removes the references to the sovereign altogether so that the roles are simply referred to as the Attorney-General and the solicitor-general. Further, it replaces ‘Her Majesty’ with ‘the Crown in right of Victoria’ in reference to the functions of the solicitor-general. This bill should have been predominately based on process. If it were simply a matter of legislative housekeeping, a reference to ‘Her Majesty’ would simply be replaced with ‘His Majesty’. There is no valid reason to alter or remove references to the sovereign, because Australia remains a constitutional monarchy, and any further change to our system of government is a matter for the Australian people.

Queen Elizabeth’s reign is embedded in history, and that is where it must remain. As a woman who served with commitment and grace for the people, she is remembered for her incredible sense of duty and her devotion to a life of service. She has left a lasting legacy. For my electorate of Shepparton it was her first visit to Australia back in 1954, which was commemorated with a rose garden at Monash Park gifted by the women of the region. The Queens Gardens, which are located in the heart of the city, are also named in the honour of Queen Elizabeth. During her visit, onlookers had come from surrounding towns and from across the New South Wales border to catch a glimpse of the relatively new Queen, who had only been crowned two years prior. She was accompanied by her husband Prince Philip. It was an event that tens of thousands of people attended and about 9000 school students from the region attended. There had never been anything quite like it, and many years on, that that historic visit is still talked about today. There would have been many months of preparation, including the closure of streets and navigating the crowds.

Historically, during Queen Elizabeth’s visit to Shepparton, the Queen’s procession passed by a stretch of flood plain between Shepparton and Mooroopna where the Aboriginal people of the Yorta Yorta nation had made their home along the banks of the river after walking off the mission known as the Cummeragunja and now known as The Flats. Local authorities thought this was too unsightly for Her Majesty’s eyes, and mesh was placed to block out the Aboriginal people living along the river. I recently spoke with my friend and local elder Uncle Ruben, and we talked about that historic Queen’s visit, which is now known by the community. Uncle Ruben really enjoyed revisiting the Queen’s historic visit and the story he continues to share with many. Queen Elizabeth did see the Aboriginal people living on the river. She went on to instigate them being moved onto the land, and small hubs were built on the adjoining land of Rumbalara. She served with compassion, and this story is embedded in history. If you go to The Flats today, that history is acknowledged on an honour board.

While she was the Queen, she was also a wife, mother, grandmother and great-grandmother, and it is hard to imagine the sacrifices that Her Majesty made and the impact that must have had on her family. Her intense loyalty and duty truly are commendable. While the references to ‘Her Majesty’ may be replaced by Victorian law, we must protect her place in history and her legacy and respect the monarch.

Vicki WARD (Eltham) (18:03): I am very happy to take this opportunity to speak on this bill. We know that this bill needs to pass in order for our future legislation to accurately reflect the death of Queen Elizabeth II and King Charles III assuming the throne. We will not of course talk about King Charles I, the Puritans and his grisly end. British history, as you would expect, is quite colourful, but it is not our history. It is the history of another country and another world. I have very little English blood, and the monarchy means very little to my Irish, German and Swedish ancestry. However, this debate does give us the opportunity to have a conversation in our Parliament about the role of the monarchy in modern Australia.

Of course I am a republican. We know that in Australia an Australian cannot be head of state. Despite our opinions on the institution of the monarchy, members in both this Parliament and in the Commonwealth Parliament pledge their allegiance to a foreign monarch, which I have done and will continue to do while it is required. Of course my loyalty is true, but it does not mean that I cannot express my belief as an Australian that we need to have an Australian head of state. We must reflect on our head of state’s influence upon our domestic politics and, in extreme cases, their influence on the very leadership of our nation, as was highlighted during the 1975 constitutional crisis.

I have been riveted by The Palace Letters, a very good book by Jenny Hocking, which I would recommend that many people in this place read. Many of us on this side – in fact all of us on this side – celebrate the win of the Whitlam government. We absolutely love the amazing transformative policies that that government brought in, the wonderful change that came with the Whitlam government which transformed our country into the modern place that it is now with so many things that we take for granted – I will not digress, because I do want to talk about a couple of the things that he did, such as getting rid of the British honours system and introducing Australian honours.

We finally had our own Australian national anthem rather than God Save the Queen, and in 1974 he removed the words ‘God save the Queen’ from the official proclamation dissolving Parliament. Eighteen months after his second election victory in 1974, we found Whitlam removed from office by the Queen’s representative in Australia, Governor-General Sir John Kerr, without warning and despite Whitlam maintaining a clear majority in the House of Representatives at all times.

Michaela Settle: Shame, Fraser, shame!

Vicki WARD: Absolute shame, Fraser, shame – yes. I grew up with that mantra too, member for Eureka.

We know that Whitlam was dismissed on 11 November 1975, and Sir John Kerr wrote to the Queen’s private secretary that he had done so, and I quote, ‘without informing the palace in advance’. But we know this is not right. We know because of the wonderful work of Jenny Hocking and Gough Whitlam’s son, who was a part of the legal team to help get access to the palace lettersfrom the Australian archives, who were doing everything they could to protect the Queen. The Australian archives were doing everything they could to protect the Queen of the United Kingdom and this country but not to protect the historical integrity of our own nation. That in itself is an absolute shame.

In a letter sent to the palace on 3 July Kerr enclosed a clipping from the Canberra Times which raises the possibility of dismissing Whitlam. So Kerr is already talking to the palace in the middle of the year, four or five months before he dismisses Whitlam, that it is a possibility, right? He starts putting it out there. But what is incredibly distressing is the involvement of the current King in this conversation. The Governor-General is aware that he has powers to check an elected government, right? He knows that he can get rid of Whitlam. He is at a dinner party with the Malaysian Prime Minister and Whitlam, and Whitlam makes a joke about well, it’s you or me. That freaks Kerr out, and Kerr goes on a pathway to working out how he can protect his own job and how he can then get rid of Whitlam if he needs to. He talks with the United Kingdom and he war-games this. There is this sense that, ‘Well, we don’t want the Queen’s representative being dismissed by a Prime Minister’ – a Prime Minister, no less, who has dared to take on the British establishment by getting rid of things like God Save the Queen as our national anthem. This was something that absolutely angered the powerful aristocracy, the powerful chamber, around the royal family – that us colonial upstarts would actually stand on our own two feet and demand to be seen as our own nation.

Jess Wilson: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Eltham I think is shining a light behind the true intention of this bill by the Andrews Labor government, but I do ask you to bring her back to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): The member for Eltham will continue and will keep thinking about the statute law amendment in her contribution.

Vicki WARD: Yes, absolutely, Acting Speaker, because as we know, in the ranging debate that came from the member for Kew, she even spoke about the referendum that we had in 1999, which I am working my way to and sadly will probably run out of time for.

In The Palace Letters Jenny Hocking says the letter from Charteris – and this is the private secretary to the Queen – confirms that Kerr told Prince Charles in mid-September 1975 that he was considering having to dismiss the government if supply was blocked and that Charles discussed this with the Queen and with Charteris.

Richard Riordan: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it appears that the member for Eltham is revelling in the fact that she has clearly watched all episodes of The Crown and is using that as the basis for her contribution today. I am wondering, Acting Speaker –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): Member for Polwarth, what is your point of order?

Richard RIORDAN: if you could counsel her to get back to the bill at hand and assist the house in understanding the government’s logic for such proposals and move on, because if we want to understand The Crown, we can subscribe to Netflix and discover the benefits of such a series.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Juliana Addison): As someone who had Jenny Hocking as a lecturer during my masters, I am very interested in the contribution of the member for Eltham. It has been a wideranging debate, and I ask her to continue for the last 2½ minutes, referring back to the bill.

Vicki WARD: Thank you, Acting Speaker. To go and engage with the member for Kew’s contribution, the monarchy’s involvement in the 1975 constitutional crisis raised many questions about Australia’s system of governance that can be said to have catalysed the republican movement and the 1999 referendum. While I appreciate the member for Kew’s positive character reference to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, I would love to know who they will support this week when the Matildas take on the British soccer team. And who did he support in the Ashes? Did he support the Diamonds’ crushing of England? And what does he know of us? What does he know of our culture and of what indeed matters to us and what we care about as a sovereign nation? But most disappointingly with the republic referendum, as with the yes plebiscite and along with the current Voice to Parliament referendum, the Liberals have historically used referendums to divide this nation, and that is shameful.

The member for Kew has raised the 1999 republic referendum, which posed two questions, the first being whether Australia should become a republic and the second being whether Australia should insert a preamble to the constitution. We know that this referendum failed in part no less due to mischief and deliberate misinformation. Analysis suggested that voters were divided and confused by the proposal, factors which can be attributed to misinformation spread by the no campaign. The no side’s common arguments included claiming the supporters of the yes campaign were elites, despite many leading figures supporting the monarchy also having their own elite backgrounds. No campaigners also called for further consultation without specifying what steps were needed to ensure such consultation – and I am sure people will start to see that there is a familiarity of approach here with the current referendum. I also have to say how upsetting it was to even have a future Prime Minister in Tony Abbott say that you cannot trust politicians to select a president. This person then became Prime Minister.

Daniela De Martino: And Minister for Women!

Vicki WARD: And Minister for Women indeed. And so we know that this kind of behaviour is something that is regularly engaged in, where there is a whole bunch of misinformation and where there is shameful activity to try and confuse people in our community so that they do not vote yes. We are seeing it with the current referendum, we saw it with the marriage plebiscite and we saw it with the 1999 referendum. We see elites sowing division in this country so that they can reduce the power of the people in this country who want to assert themselves, whether it is us trying to assert our own national identity through becoming a republic, whether it is us asserting the identity of our rainbow community so that they can marry who they love or whether it is us asserting the authority of Indigenous peoples in this country wanting to have a Voice to Parliament.

Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (18:13): I rise to speak on this bill as someone who has spoken publicly as a republican. I feel that I can rise today as someone with republican sentiments in contrast to the previous speaker the member for Eltham, who wanted to regale us with some sort of great conspiracy and desire by the current Labor administration to actually change our constitutional way of being not only here but presumably to influence the rest of Australia. I remind the member for Eltham that the good people of Australia had a choice on this only recently, in the last 23 years. They had a choice to look at our system of government and to make an assessment of the best way to go forward as a nation. They clearly were given the choice of changing to a republic model and doing away with an age-old tradition that has served not only Australia well but many other countries well, and they decided not to take that option. They decided to stick with what they knew and what they knew worked well.

And so it is disappointing to see this government, as it so often does, seek to creep changes in in its own sneaky little way when it thinks people are not looking. This has provided a great opportunity for them to water down the system that has been here and worked very, very well in the grand state of Victoria for a long time. Not only has this building hosted the former monarch, but it has been long on the visiting trail of the monarchy that has been part of our governing system here in Victoria and Australia for our entire existence. And so it seems not only an act of rudeness, really, to sneak this in but unnecessary.

The government, if it wants to move from – as the member for Eltham sort of outlined – all the woes and heartache, in her mind, of being part of a constitutional monarchy, then the government can put that forward to the people of Victoria and say to them, ‘Look, it is our belief of our membership that we do not want this system and we want to change it and we are going to rip away the customs and traditions and language and the format of the way our Parliament works, just to prove a point.’ But they know of course that that sentiment would not win, and they know of course that Australians by and large, new Australians, old Australians, multigenerational Australians, are all actually very, very happy with the system of government that we have here in Australia. However strong the arguments that members on the other side might feel that they have, however strong they feel those arguments are, they in fact were given not so long ago to the people of Australia and the people of Victoria, and they decided that that was not the way to go.

Michaela Settle: It was 24 years ago.

Richard RIORDAN: Well, you know, there is a Labor federal government now, and they are more than welcome to try again, but I suspect that they need to look to the Liberals for how to run a successful referendum, where you actually go out and work with the community and get a successful referendum up. Of course we can quote 1967 and 1977, when in fact constructive, collaborative Liberal governments got together and worked with all the community and got them across. They do not take the point of view of the Australian populace for granted. They do not just assume that their way is the only way. They do not just assume that, you know, whatever is the mindset of a humble caucus is what everybody in the nation wants.

Sadly, we are going to see a great opportunity missed, most likely, this year for greater reconciliation and greater understanding of our First Nations people when this government recklessly drives a good notion and a well-supported notion over the cliff just through avarice, through contempt for negotiation and through contempt for the Australian people. And quite frankly, if you cannot get a progression in our constitution to recognise our First Nations people, then that says a lot about the way this government deals with constitutional change. If the member for Eltham, amongst others, sits there and makes up excuses as to why they have to operate through backdoor mechanisms to try and get their way on constitutional monarchy, then I think that is a sad indictment on the mindset of the government and those that support their approach.

The legislation that we have before us today has a simple role, and it is a role that the average Australian simply understands. We have had the passing of one monarch to another, and as such we have to update certain elements of our legislation and bills and so on. And so that makes sense – that you would, just like so many other jurisdictions around the Commonwealth, simply just replace like for like. It is not a particularly difficult concept for people to understand, but not for this government of course. They have decided to wiggle and wheedle a whole raft of other changes that at the end of the day – the sky is not going to fall in – speak to the intent of this government, to its sneakiness, to its trickery that it so often employs when bringing legislation into this house. I know in my time in this place we have seen time and time again simple, good notions that many of us could support or believe in, but this government tends to put a barb and –

Roma Britnell: A twist.

Richard RIORDAN: a twist, member for South-West Coast, you are quite right. They put a twist in it that really makes it not workable or not palatable, and they try and patch it up with the trickery of language and the trickery of intent that they have behind it.

So to this legislation that is coming to us today we are proposing as an opposition that there be a simple amendment, and the simple amendment is that this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government has provided clarity on the rationale of the amending provisions, which has been sadly missing as it so often is with this government. Time and time again we have pieces of legislation coming before us completely devoid of regulations and other details that really are vitally important for not only the opposition to decide on the merits of the case but also key stakeholders and others.

In this particular case, while the sky will not fall in, it is about the simple practices and procedures that the police employ. There is a list here in fact of agencies. For the protective services and others that work and protect the Parliament and work and protect the people of Victoria, the way that they operate is fundamentally switched as to the purpose and the way we operate legislatively, as a Parliament and as a governing body. I think that most people – most Australians and most Victorians – fundamentally understand the concept that we need to update on a regular basis, for a variety of reasons, our legislation, our acts of Parliament and our procedures on the change of a monarch. It is something that has gone on now for centuries across Westminster systems across the Commonwealth. It is not difficult to do. There are clear ways that this can go forward. There are clear procedures in place in other jurisdictions where automatically, at the change of a monarch, things are updated. There is no reason why Victoria cannot similarly follow suit. I find just on principle that this is a difficult bill to support. It is one that speaks more to the intent and the sneakiness of the government than it does to the aspirations and future of Victorians. Therefore I cannot support the bill in its current form. I support our amendment put forward, that we can do this with greater knowledge and understanding of the government. I urge my colleagues not to support this bill.

Alison MARCHANT (Bellarine) (18:22): It is a great pleasure to speak on the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023, and what a wideranging debate we have had on this bill. I may try to take the tone down a little bit and direct us back to the bill, as a new member. I will stick clearly to this bill as much as I can. This bill, though, is not groundbreaking, as has been referenced before; it is ensuring that our legislation is accurate. Obviously this bill is going to amend the references in Victorian legislation from ‘Her Majesty’ to ‘His Majesty’ and other similar terms following the death of Queen Elizabeth II and King Charles III assuming the throne. I have spoken a few times in this house and have prepared for a variety of bills, and I have talked about new legislation. I might have to go back over the records, but I do remember nearly every time saying that our legislation needs to be modern and up to date and obviously accurate. Good legislation housekeeping is making sure our bills are accurate and that the accuracy is maintained.

The passing of Queen Elizabeth II, who died on 8 September 2022, will certainly be one of those moments in our lives where we probably all remember where we were when we heard the news. She had 70 years on that throne. It is an incredible reign and I respect that, but I have to admit I do not follow the monarchy that closely. The institution represents obviously our head of state, but I know many Victorians held the Queen with great affection and respected Queen Elizabeth II. My gran certainly did. My gran is from that era of singing God Save the Queen and having the Queen’s portrait in the house. I can even remember my gran being excited to become a great-grandmother at the same time that the Queen was becoming great-grandmother again, with my cousin and Kate Middleton having similar due dates. My gran would reference that often. I understand the affection that Victorians had for the Queen.

This bill, as we have seen today, does raise maybe some debate about the ongoing connections to the monarchy and the fact that an Australian is not our head of state, but that is kind of not the direction I want to take. For me traditions are always important. People hold traditions very close to their hearts, but moving forward and going into a modern society we do make changes. We make changes for those right reasons. We make changes for the betterment of our communities. In this Parliament and obviously in the Commonwealth Parliament we pledge our allegiance to the foreign monarch. I certainly remember my pledging of the oath here in this place, a special moment, and I know those traditions are important. Interestingly, I have learned that Victoria is the only state that requires members of both houses to be sworn and to swear allegiance to a new monarch after a death, under section 23 of the constitution, so I am learning a lot from this legislation. Last time this occurred was 14 February 1952 after Queen Elizabeth’s father King George VI had passed, and I know members in this Parliament had to be called back late last year to be sworn in again under His Majesty. But ultimately any of those changes to a republic are questions for the Commonwealth to deal with.

We have lots of things that change over time, and the passing of the Queen has also seen changes needing to be made in a variety of settings. We have had to change the Australian passport. Reference to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is on that first page of your passport, and these words will now be replaced with His Majesty King Charles III in the new passports. Obviously – side note – passports referring to the Queen still remain valid until their expiry date. There are changes to coins, with the royal mint confirming King Charles will appear on the back of Australian coins. An item adorned with the Queen’s cipher will need updating, and that includes on uniforms worn by Australian soldiers. We make changes all the time when these events happen and occur, so making changes in this legislation is just sensible housekeeping that needs to happen.

It is also important here to note that we have made changes at a constitutional level and legal arrangements to recognise here in Victoria before kings and queens there was in this state the oldest continuing culture on earth, a unique and a precious thing. We recognise that. I will just have to reference this to get this right, but section 1A of the Constitution Act 1975 does go to this point. It provides that:

(1) The Parliament acknowledges that the events described in the preamble to this Act occurred without proper consultation, recognition or involvement of the Aboriginal people of Victoria.

(2) The Parliament recognises that Victoria’s Aboriginal people, as the original custodians of the land on which the Colony of Victoria was established –

(a) have a unique status as the descendants of Australia’s first people; and

(b) have a spiritual, social, cultural and economic relationship with their traditional lands and waters within Victoria; and

(c) have made a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the identity and well-being of Victoria.

Proudly, Victoria has advanced as well to being the first state to pursue that treaty and truth with our First Nations people here in Victoria, something we should all be very proud of. Now we have the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria; this is an independent and democratic elected body representing traditional owners of country and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Victoria.

But just back to the bill at hand, I suppose, and the objectives and the necessity of this bill, current legislation obviously references Her Majesty, and since the death of Queen Elizabeth II these references are incorrect. The actual wording in each act is incorrect, and these amendments will make sure that the state’s laws remain relevant and accurate. As a new member I do like to do a lot of research when I am talking on a bill and making sure that I am really clear on what I am speaking about and understand that, and legislation is important. As they say, the devil is in the detail, and this is part of the detail that needs to be addressed and detail that needs to happen. That is why it is called, obviously, a statute law bill, which is a type of bill Parliament often considers passing to correct any of those omissions, ambiguities and errors found in statutes. As I have said, it is a good piece of legislative housekeeping.

Contrary to what I have heard from the other side, these bills do not make changes to policies and they do not make substantive changes to laws. They are really just tidying up what needs to be done. So the overarching intent of this bill really is to make these minimum changes to the Victorian statute book to ensure the terms remain legally accurate and the current meanings and legal interpretations are preserved. The bill is not intended to have any retrospective effect either. So I think we just need to simplify this down a little bit. This is a simple bill that is really doing the housekeeping that needs to happen in this place. It will not change policy in Victoria. It will not change how acts are applied. But more importantly, as I have said, it is important that we have accurate, modern and up-to-date legislation, and that is exactly what this bill is trying to achieve.

I am pleased I was able to stand up today and talk to this bill to make sure that we have a wideranging debate and that this bill passes. But it is quite confusing to hear some of the rhetoric we are hearing and the scaremongering from the other side, which I am just a little bit confused about. This bill is not going to change any policies. We are literally updating our legislation, and I commend the bill to the house.

Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (18:31): It is disorderly to respond to interjections. I am just on my feet, only 10 seconds into my contribution on the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023, and already the member for Frankston is throwing barbs across the chamber. Let the record reflect that. I will not be, to the member for Frankston’s great disappointment, giving a rendition of God Save the King, although I know that that is something which perhaps many members of this place could learn from.

I rise to address, hopefully without interjection, the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023, and I do so noting the outstanding contribution of the member for Kew. The member for Kew is a new member in this place and a new member of the shadow cabinet, and I say to this house: put your money behind the member for Kew. Her contribution, the first time that she has responded to a bill in substance and led a bill on behalf of the opposition through this chamber, should be a textbook example for every other shadow minister in this Parliament –

Annabelle Cleeland: And minister.

Brad ROWSWELL: And perhaps minister, member for Euroa. As I am on my feet, I note the member for Greenvale has returned to the chamber. I do commend the member for Greenvale for the respectful way in which he addressed the bill before the house. I commend the member for Bellarine for the respectful way in which she addressed the bill before the house. I note the outstanding contributions of the members for Shepparton and Polwarth. But I do take issue with the way in which the member for Greenvale addressed the bill before the house. If I wanted a history lesson –

Roma Britnell: Eltham.

Brad ROWSWELL: Eltham, sorry. Forgive me. I am hoping Hansard will make me sound better than I am. In regard to the member for Eltham’s contribution, if I wanted a history lesson, I would have referred to Geoffrey Blainey’s A Shorter History of Australia. But, no, we got that from the member for Eltham, and we got from the member for Eltham, I suggest, an insight into the Labor government’s intent behind this bill. If they were simply replacing like for like, then the members of the government would take into account and agree to the very, very good and well-drafted amendments proposed by the member for Kew. But, no, I suspect they will not. I suspect they will not do that.

We should at this point actually flag the opposition’s intent for the textual amendments drafted and submitted by the member for Kew. We intend for those to be considered in the Legislative Council in substance as well, because we know that this government will not move to consideration in detail on this bill in this place, and that is a great shame for our democracy. I note that the member for Kew in preparing the position of the opposition for this bill has consulted with a number of groups, including the Victorian Bar Council, the Law Institute of Victoria, the Law Council of Australia, the Samuel Griffith Society, the Australian Monarchist League, the Australian Republic Movement and the Police Association Victoria. The member for Kew has done her homework. She has consulted with these groups, some groups that the government did not have a care or concern to consult with in the first place when this legislation was being drafted. If they had the care, the courtesy and the concern to consult with these groups, then they would have known pretty early on in the piece that this bill as drafted does not have the broad support of those particular groups, which is another reason why the member for Kew has proposed the amendments that she has.

This bill should be straightforward. It should be absolutely straightforward. It should be simply replacing like for like, but this bill does not do that. It goes far beyond that. I would even suggest that Labor appear to have seen this bill as an opportunity to, frankly, diminish the role of the monarch and our sovereign. As members on this side have highlighted, in the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General Act 1972 the bill does not replace the formal titles of Her Majesty’s Attorney-General and Her Majesty’s solicitor-general with His Majesty’s Attorney-General and His Majesty’s solicitor-general respectively, and I know that the Shadow Attorney-General, the member for Malvern, would be deeply concerned by that omission in this bill. In fact this bill removes the reference to the sovereign altogether so that the roles are simply referred to as the Attorney-General and the solicitor-general. So why, if there was not a deeper intent behind the changes in this bill, would this bill not reflect a simple like-for-like change?

Unlike some of my other colleagues I was not able to attend the bill briefing, and I know that I did speak to the member for Kew on behalf of the opposition before that bill briefing was undertaken by the government. I had a very simple question, and that was: how are the changes that the government is proposing in this bill reflected in other institutions in our state? And I know, because the member for Kew has told me, that that is a question which she posed to the government and which frankly she never got a response to, and that deeply concerns me also.

If the system of government in this state – if our constitutional monarchy – is to change to a republic, that must be done by an agreement, as the member for Kew pointed out in her contribution, not only by the majority of Australians but by the majority of Australians in each state and the majority of states. Until that time we should have respect and regard for the sovereign, for King Charles III, as not only the King of England but the King of Australia. But many of the amendments contained in this bill appear to remove references to the sovereign for no valid reason. And we know that there is no valid reason to alter or remove references to the sovereign, because Australia remains to this day, the last time I checked, a constitutional monarchy, and any future changes to our system of government are a matter for the Australian people. In fact, I know I am stating the obvious, but perhaps it would assist members on the government side for me to do so: we will remain a constitutional monarchy until the majority of Australians in a majority of states vote to express their will to change our system of government.

The coalition is moving a series of amendments, as I have flagged, to bring this bill back to its original intent and to repair, frankly, the overreach that this government has initiated with the drafting of this legislation. These amendments seek to update the bill to reflect what should have been brought before this Parliament: a simple substitution of terms to reflect the accession of King Charles III in our statute books. With these amendments the bill will be a straightforward matter of legislative housekeeping to ensure all laws in place in Victoria make correct reference to the sovereign following the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The relevant acts will be amended only insofar as to switch references from ‘Her Majesty’ to ‘His Majesty’ and ‘Queen’ to ‘King’ – like for like.

If those opposite do not take the opportunity to support these amendments, they need to frankly ask themselves why. Why are they overreaching? Why are they, by stealth, assuming within not only the cabinet but the Labor caucus a presumption of the will of not only the Victorian people but the Australian people? We have seen this before, the way that this government operates, the arrogant way in which this government operates, time and time again assuming the will of the Victorian people and going far beyond their remit and far beyond the will of the Victorian people, and we see that again in this particular circumstance. We do not need to shy away from the fact that Australia is in fact a constitutional monarchy and that we form part of the Commonwealth. Our system of constitutional monarchy has allowed us to maintain remarkably stable government in our country in an increasingly uncertain world, and we should not seek to diminish this in any form, which is why we have proposed the amendments we have proposed, which is why we will propose those amendments in the other place and which is why, when the government’s guillotine drops sharply on the head of this bill and other bills on the government business program, we will be opposing this bill come 5 pm on Thursday.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (18:41): I think the member for Sandringham used his whole repertoire this afternoon. He did very well, although a rendition of God Save the Queen would have gone down a treat.

Brad Rowswell: King!

Paul EDBROOKE: King – my apologies. We will get to that, though. He is right in one thing, though: we will not be supporting the amendments. I have been sitting here listening to the debate on this bill, the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023. I think the book was opened fairly wide from the start and there has been a fair bit of – how would you put this – trivialising of this bill. Some people who have risen in this house would have us believe that this bill is the Victorian government slowly but surely pushing the nation’s constitution away from the monarchy. This bill in no way changes the Constitution Act 1975 or in any way changes what was enacted in 1855. It will not change any policies in Victoria. It will not even change how this bill is applied. It is important that legislation in the statute books is accurate and precise. We all know the reasons for that. Statute law amendment bills like this come into Parliament quite often to make minor changes, and this is a minor change. It is quite interesting to hear some of those opposite talk about this incremental change that we are making and say that we have decided as a Victorian government, because one person spoke about it, we would like to become republicans. I do not hide my thoughts on this. I read about the monarchy in New Idea –

Members interjecting.

Paul EDBROOKE: when I am waiting to pay for groceries, I should add. I do not think that they have much impact on modern Australia in the way that they did, say, 1000 years ago in feudal Britain. When the kingdoms of England were put together, people were convinced there was a metaphysical kind of connection between them and the king, who was a vision of God on earth and who had all those powers of God as well. Of course there will be some people that disagree with me on that, but I think we have moved on. It is no longer a feudal society in Europe. We are certainly not here. I would even go far as to suggest that, with the link to colonialism that the monarchy has, for some people of a certain background here today to be celebrating the monarchy is fantastic, but other people have had very, very, very different experiences with the monarchy in Australia.

With that I would suggest that changing the language to refer to ‘the King’ or ‘His Majesty’ is not that big a deal. It is just there to make sure our legislation and our statute books are accurate, and that is all. Of course we have to change it from ‘Her Majesty’ to ‘His Majesty’ following the death of Queen Elizabeth II and King Charles III assuming the throne. Even though I am not a monarchist myself, I was really sad to hear of the Queen’s death. As far as people that serve their community go, she is a good example, maybe the last good example of someone who has served their community. Do I think that we need someone in a monarchy as our head of state now? No, I do not, but at the same time I do not believe that anyone seriously can come into this house and read into this bill that it is the Victorian state government’s attempt to undermine the federal constitution and undermine every other state and territory in Australia. It is just ridiculous.

We have heard from the opposition about an amendment to this. I have read the amendment, and it is just a time-wasting exercise. I do not think any of us need to go through that. This bill will raise debate about an ongoing connection with the monarchy for some people, though it is very straightforward and, as I have said, it does not change anything in day-to-day life for Parliament or in any legal sense for anyone in Victoria. In fact it is not like it has not been done before. Western Australia took a different approach, but its Legislation Act 2021 provides editorial powers for Western Australia’s parliamentary counsel to amend laws to update sovereign references consistent with WA’s current drafting practices. We do not have such legislation; that is why we are here today obviously. Conversely, the Parliament of the Canadian territory of Yukon has passed a References to the Sovereign Statute Law Amendment Act 2023 to update legislative references to reflect the change from ‘Queen’ to ‘King’ and to streamline the process for similar updates in the future. This is a similar approach to what is proposed in this bill. The statement published by the government of Yukon explains it very neatly:

In light of the passing of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in September 2022, His Majesty King Charles III became Canada’s new Sovereign and Head of State.

As a result of this transition, the Yukon’s legislation must be updated to reflect the identity of the current Sovereign of Canada. This bill will accomplish this while streamlining the process for similar updates in the future.

…

• The proposed amendments are administrative and do not impact policy guiding how government operates.

I wonder if in the jurisdiction of the government of Yukon they had the same kind of opposition where everyone donned their tinfoil hats and it was part of the Yukon’s attempt to undermine the Canadian national government and steer them away from the Commonwealth. I am not quite sure.

One thing I have not heard from those opposite yet is a connection to the Commonwealth Games, and I fully expected to hear that. I am sure we might –

Jess Wilson: I did that. You missed it.

Paul EDBROOKE: Oh, you have already done that, member for Kew. One thing I will say, though, is I am very glad it was the current member for Kew talking on this bill and not the previous member for Kew. No disrespect to the previous member for Kew, but that would have been an interesting conversation, and I am glad we did not have to hear it.

This bill is also intended to have no retrospective effect. There have been some obvious questions, which deserve answers from the opposition. We have had some people state that they did not go to the bill briefing. Maybe they would have had the advantage of hearing the answers to these questions in the bill briefing, but the obvious question that arises I think with this bill is why we cannot simply use gender-neutral terms such as ‘the Crown’ to avoid having to revise and rewrite statutes in the future. ‘Sovereign’ or a gender-neutral term like ‘the Crown’ has not been used in the Victorian bill, as it would require potentially further and more detailed changes to legislation. While the terms ‘Crown’ or ‘state of Victoria’ can be used interchangeably, noting that under the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 ‘the Crown’ means the Crown in right of Victoria, not all references to Her Majesty are interchangeable with gender-neutral terms. I think that is an obvious answer to a question that has come up quite a few times in this debate.

I guess the only reason I can think of that those opposite might want to move an amendment to this bill is someone has got their nose out of joint because in the Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances and Superannuation Act 1968 the reference to ‘Her Majesty’s opposition’ is going to be removed and the act will simply say ‘opposition’. I know, as we mentioned before, the former member for Kew would have been up in arms about that, with pitchforks and torches, but I tend to believe in my reading of this bill that it is fairly innocuous. It is just to keep our law and the application of our law accurate. I kind of think maybe there are some people on that side of the house that would always like to be called Her Majesty’s or His Majesty’s opposition instead of just the opposition. That is the only thing I can think of for why you would draw any line in the sand with this bill.

As far as consultation, we have heard a list of people that were or should have been consulted. I am sure most of them turned around and said, ‘Well, this is fairly certainly a straightforward bill that doesn’t affect any of our practice and doesn’t affect the way the law is applied to people.’ Once again, in summing up, I will just say that this bill will not change any policies in Victoria. It does not change how a bill is applied. It is very important that as we change and as our community changes, as monarchs rise and fall, we change the language in our statute books so there are no challenges, there are no issues that come with that – and that is our job in Parliament. Whether it be in regard to a bill that is very contentious or a bill that is very straightforward, as today, that is our job. We have a number of facts which refer to Her Majesty or similar terms. It is, following Queen Elizabeth II’s death, technically correct to change these. That is what we are doing here today, as other jurisdictions, like Western Australia and the territory of Yukon in Canada, have done as well. They have done it. I do not think there were riots in the streets or coups. I think it is very straightforward. I commend the bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (18:51): I rise today to speak on the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023. I have been waiting all day. After talking about it this morning and seeing that it was coming up, I have just been waiting all day to be able to get up here and talk on this. First off, thank you to the member for Kew for the lead role in this. I do realise that the main purpose of the bill is to amend the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 – I have been bursting to get that out – in relation to references to the sovereign and to amend the statute law of Victoria to revise language referring to the Queen and Her Majesty as a consequence of the death of Queen Elizabeth II. I have been over to England and stood at the front of Buckingham Palace. The Queen did not invite me in, but that does not matter. I am still keen to talk on this. Also, as a young boy growing up we did have a corgi as a dog, so I am well versed to be able to come and talk on this.

Following the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the accession of King Charles III to the head of state, Victoria’s statute book required amendment to reference ‘His Majesty’ or similar terms. While the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 does provide that references in legislation to the sovereign are ‘to the sovereign for the time being’, the actual wording of each statute on its face is still incorrect. These amendments will ensure that the state’s laws remain relevant and accurate. As we can see, I have learned today that even though this is a narrow debate on statute law, it can be wideranging and you can virtually head off and talk about a lot of stuff that does not involve this statute law amendment bill, so it has been great to be able to hear everybody do that.

The bill will update the Victorian laws to replace ‘Her Majesty’ with ‘His Majesty’ – pretty simple – and similar terms such as ‘her’ to ‘his’ and ‘Queen’ to ‘King’, as they are, to become relevant. The bill will update 38 acts, except for a number of provisions in the Constitution Act 1975 due to the need for compliance with important manner and form of passage requirements in the constitution. These include the need for a referendum to amend some provisions and absolute majority and special majority passage requirements to amend other provisions. These provisions are expected to be updated at the next available opportunity when there is a future change to similar provisions in the constitution. It is all stock standard stuff that needs to be done and – I have heard it said a few times before – just the housekeeping of the chamber to make sure that we do get this right.

I see the coalition is moving a series of amendments to this bill – done by the member for Kew – to bring it back to its original intent and repair Labor’s legislative overreach. I will just quickly go through a few of the amendments, as I have time. These amendments seek to update the bill to reflect what should have been brought before this Parliament, a simple substitution of terms to reflect the accession of King Charles III in our statute book – basic, nice and easy. But the overreach of the Labor government makes us just a little bit nervous. With these amendments the bill will be straightforward, a matter of legislative housekeeping, as I said before, to ensure all laws in place in Victoria make correct references to the sovereign following the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The relevant acts will be amended only insofar as to switch references to ‘Her’ to ‘His’ Majesty, ‘Queen’ to ‘King’, like for like – so basic, easy stuff to do to get through.

Australia’s constitutional monarchy is no less current or valid as a result of the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, which was the trigger event for the introduction of this bill. Back in the day, when the Queen first came to visit Australia, and the member for Shepparton alluded to this before, we were down in the Latrobe Valley. We were lucky enough on 3 March 1954 that the Queen and also the Duke of Edinburgh visited Traralgon and Yallourn, which was fantastic. They arrived in Sale via a plane, so I take it they landed at the RAAF air base down there, and then they travelled from Sale to Traralgon and Yallourn on the royal train, which is pretty apt, because I think the train actually met the KPI back then, unlike today with our V/Line trains – with the Melbourne Big Build sometimes our trains are not running on time. They did not have to revert to going on a V/Line bus. So the royal train travelled from Sale to Traralgon and Yallourn, and they inspected the open cut at Yallourn. Yallourn no longer exists – it actually became part of the open cut – so it was great back in 1954 that the train actually could travel from Sale to Traralgon.

Speaking to my mum and father, they were young back in the day, back in 1954, and aunties and uncles also attended the event. When they arrived in Traralgon there was a magnificent red carpet, which became known as the royal red carpet, which was kept at the Traralgon shire offices back then. In my time as a plumber back working on the old shire buildings I could actually see the red carpet, which was brought out for special occasions like deb balls at schools and other so-called events, but otherwise it just lay idle in a corner of the historical society. If you go into the historical society now, you can actually see a lot of photos and so forth of that particular day back in 1954.

The member for Kew has moved a reasoned amendment:

That all the words after ‘that’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government has provided clarity on the …

impact of the changes. Hopefully the government will take note of that and take that on board. But as I said, I have been looking forward all day to standing in front of you and talking about the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023. I thank the chamber for listening to me this afternoon.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Albert Park, with about 20 seconds.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (18:59): Thirty seconds? Well, I was just going to say I think the amendments proposed by the opposition, respectfully, reflect more about the not-modern opposition. That is, they are the anathema of modern –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time for government business has ended.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.