Wednesday, 16 August 2023

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.

And Jess Wilson’s 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 rationale of the amending provisions’.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:12): I am very pleased to continue my discussion on the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023. As I said yesterday when I started speaking to this bill, I was quite surprised by the sheer number of amendments that have been proposed, including the reasoned amendment, such is the consternation it is as if the amendments that we are proposing through this bill are somehow revolutionary or an overreach. I even heard the word ‘trickery’, which is absurd to say the least. And I would say –

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: Treachery, trickery, goodness knows what. It was quite a flourish there and certainly deviated from the core element and the foundation of the changes here, which is really about accuracy. I will substantiate further the contentions that I am raising, but before I do that I do want to zone in on some specific concerns that were raised, I believe, by the member for Kew and some of the other members in the opposition. I hope to allay some of their concerns about the overreach that they contend this amendment bill is intending to bring about, when in fact that is absolutely not the case. For instance, there was a reference made to the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General Act 1972 and replacing references to ‘Her Majesty’s Attorney-General’ and ‘Her Majesty’s Solicitor-General’ with simply – these are the changes proposed – ‘Attorney-General’ and ‘solicitor-general’. I ask my learned colleagues here: how many Australians refer to ‘Her Majesty’s Attorney-General’? Have you ever heard anyone say that in the modern era? I am scratching my head. A point has already been well made in that argument there alone, and we see a clear demarcation between the progressive Andrews Labor government we have here and the very much out-of-touch opposition that we have over there.

I am going to proceed with some further concerns raised. I would like to specifically, and out of respect, address those concerns. One of them was about removing ‘Her Majesty’ and not replacing it with ‘His Majesty’ but simply having ‘Crown in the right of Victoria’. This is referring back to that act – I should say, the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General Act 1972. This is the appropriate term as it refers to the body politic of Victoria rather than the King in a personal capacity. There is a very specific and clear and good rationale for the change to be made in that manner. This was perhaps a little sloppy by the opposition and there was a bit of light dismissiveness rather than their looking deeper as to the very solid rationale for that change.

There is a further comment I would like to make about some concerns flagged by the opposition. In the Crown Proceedings Act 1958, removing references such as ‘Our Lady Queen’ and not inserting ‘Our Lord the King’, the amendments substitute ‘Queen’ with ‘King’ where relevant, referring to the current sovereign as ‘King’ rather than ‘Our Lord the King’. Let me tell you the rationale: it reflects modern drafting practice. Again, in Australia, has anyone heard ‘Our Lady Queen’ in the modern era or, further, ‘Our Lord the King’? Can you imagine, as an Australian, saying ‘Our Lord the King’? No, and it is not out of disrespect and it is nothing to do with a debate about monarchy versus republic or otherwise. It simply reflects modern language and modern drafting practice, because when we are speaking within the context of drafting bills, then I think it is right and proper and appropriate to adhere to what is considered and well accepted as modern drafting practice.

I think that the overreach was from the opposition, and the changes proposed are really completely unnecessary because what we are focusing on here, as I have stated from the outset, is accuracy and not substantive changes, least of all to the constitution proper. I think that is very important. I did wish to address those specific concerns because that if we are really honest about how Australians communicate in the modern era – I am generalising, but for the most part – we should not be referring to some of the amendments that have been proposed here, which are holding us back a century. It does not make sense. Indeed if you want respect for the law or for any changes to laws that we bring through, it makes good common sense that they should reflect, as much as is reasonably possible, the vernacular of the community in the modern era.

I put a caveat that of course with drafting you do have to be prudent and make sure that the meaning is clear and accurate. I am not suggesting that you would import colloquial language to a bill – not at all. However, I am suggesting that within the ambit of the drafting of bills, where it is reasonable and does not in any way vitiate the intention and the meaning that is intended to be delivered, it should reflect modern practice. I think that is only reasonable when we are talking about these changes which, as I said earlier, should not be receiving the consternation that they are from the opposition. It is a democracy – they are fully entitled to put forward their concerns. But I have just got to say it does reflect that they may be a little out of touch. Hence the benefit of having this thorough and proper debate for the benefit of the community, so they understand the rationale behind the changes that we are bringing forward.

Now, I should note a further caveat, and that is that it is true that the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 provides that references to ‘Her Majesty’ should be interpreted as her successor and that words importing a gender include the other gender, so there is that element too when you are looking at that specific piece of legislation; it allows to a certain extent for changes and gender. However, I note the actual wording in each act is incorrect. These amendments will ensure the state’s laws remain relevant and accurate. You will note that I am going quite a long way to emphasise the point of accuracy, because that is the fundamental tenet of the changes here. In fact the changes could have been far more significant, but for the purposes of what we are seeking to achieve today, it is purely – well, I should be careful with that word; it is fundamentally, I should say – for accuracy, and I hope that that is the spirit in which it is taken for the benefit of all members in this chamber.

This is what is called a statute law bill, which is the type of bill that Parliament often considers and passes to correct ambiguities, omissions and errors found in statutes. Great, okay – granted. But the further point that I want to get to, and perhaps the most significant one, is that statute law amendment and revision acts are a longstanding and common feature of parliamentary legislative practice. As mentioned, they are periodically introduced to address purely formal issues, make editorial changes and modernise drafting styles. So I proffer – actually I contend – and I say with absolute conviction that the amendment bill here is well within the remit of a statute law bill and not an overreach, as has been proffered by the opposition. They are trying it on – I get it. They are having a crack, but I contend they cannot actually substantiate what they are putting forward. I believe that they are just trying to stir up a little bit of a chat perhaps about monarchy or otherwise or just trying to have a go and suggest that somehow our government is having a lend or otherwise, or that we are outrageously progressive and beyond. But no, what we are doing here is making some simple yet meaningful changes in terms of sustaining accuracy.

Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (11:22): I rise today to speak on the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023 in what should be a straightforward piece of legislative housekeeping. It is a bill which will, among other things, mainly update Victorian laws to reflect the unfortunate death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II after many decades of wonderful service and the accession of His Majesty King Charles III. This bill will update Victorian laws to replace ‘Her Majesty’ with ‘His Majesty’ and similar terms such as ‘her’ to ‘his’ and ‘Queen’ to ‘King’. Whilst the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 stipulates that references to the sovereign in any piece of legislation refer to the current sovereign, this legislation is not strong enough, with the actual wording of each statute being incorrect. The bill therefore improves the Interpretation of Legislation Act. There will be an amendment that any reference to the sovereign in the present, either a queen or king, will be taken to be a reference to His Majesty or Her Majesty or King or Queen as relevant.

While these changes are welcome, this is not just a routine housekeeping bill that will ensure that the state’s laws remain relevant and accurate; in fact some amendments remove references to the sovereign with no valid reason. For example, in the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General Act 1972, the bill does not even replace the formal titles of ‘Her Majesty’s Attorney-General’ and ‘Her Majesty’s Solicitor-General’ but instead removes the references to the sovereign altogether so that the roles are simply referred to as ‘the Attorney-General’ and ‘the solicitor-general’. It is a similar case for the Crown Proceedings Act 1958 and the Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances and Superannuation Act 1968.

The bill changes the words in the oaths of affirmation given by police officers, protective services officers and special constables as they are contained in the Victoria Police Act 2013, omitting all references to ‘Lady the Queen’ and substituting all references to ‘Her Majesty’s peace’ with ‘the peace’. These changes are all indicative of this current government and their processes in diminishing the role of the monarch as our sovereign and trampling, again, over elements of our parliamentary democracy – a government whose Premier has been vocal in his advocacy for a republic for many years. What might seem like a simple bill or legislative overreach is in fact symptomatic of a government seeking to turn Australia into a republic. There is no valid reason to alter or remove references to the sovereign in this bill, because Australia remains a successful constitutional monarchy and any change to our system of government is a matter for the Australian people. It is, simply put, not a matter for the state Labor government, to unilaterally alter our statute books.

This bill calls into question more broadly the deliberate and ongoing suppression of Australia’s constitutional monarchy identity. Over the past 25 years the monarchy has come under constant attack from politicians, the media and many others. This was seen recently following the death of the Queen, where a number of elements, even of hate towards her in some circumstances, were astonishing. From alleged colonial sins to other accusations, the calls for a republic have in some circumstances become louder and louder. Other forms of suppression of our constitutional monarchy have come in the form of the removal of royal portraits and symbols; the suppression of the royal anthem, even at events in which the royal family are present; the dropping of the Queen and monarchy from primary and secondary school curriculums; and now this bill, which does not create a full transfer of titles in some circumstances. Our sense of nationhood has long been attacked with respect to our constitutional monarchy. As, I guess, the hard left in particular has weaponised identity politics to sow the seeds of division, we must remember why our allegiance to the Crown is important in the first place. Allegiance to the Crown is universal to us all. Our allegiance to the sovereign is more powerful than any political or social agenda which we might have, and it unites us all to serve the greater good.

I would like to wrap up my discussion of this bill with a short reflection on the life of the Queen and her legacy. Steadfast, reliable and courageous in her leadership, the Queen was a model servant of the public. We know that throughout her life her sense of responsibility, of leadership and of the importance of governance was profound, including her service during the Second World War. Her tremendous ability to work in a bipartisan and indeed multipartisan manner with those from all sides of politics and to provide wise counsel and guidance to others was nothing short of admirable. The Queen witnessed some of the most important events in history throughout her reign, from the Cold War to the landing on the moon; the advent of the internet; the age of digitisation; and, closer to home, 16 prime ministerships in Australia. All this time she remained focused and clear in her role as monarch and head of state in Australia, the UK and other Commonwealth countries. I note that my grandmother, who unfortunately passed away in 2015, had the middle name Elizabeth, having been born just after Elizabeth herself.

In her first televised address to the country, in 1957, the Queen fervently said:

I do not give you laws or administer justice, but I can do something else; I can give you my heart and my devotion to these old islands and to all the peoples of our brotherhood of nations.

And her heart and devotion were what she gave us. As a model servant to the public, she provided us parliamentarians and indeed public servants generally with many lessons on government and leadership that we can look up to. For the Queen, leadership was not this dry, abstract concept but one which she lived and breathed actively in her everyday life and service. For the Queen, leadership was about balancing the personal and professional, projecting stability and respecting tradition and permanency, being informed and working with all sides to reach the best solutions and acting with wisdom and learning from your mistakes – lessons on leadership that, despite whatever our affiliations may be, are universal.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (11:29): I also rise to make a contribution on the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023. This bill, unlike what the opposition seem to be suggesting, is a very straightforward and clear bill, and it is a statute bill. There is a bit of a definition of what a statute bill is, and that is: it is the type of bill that Parliament often considers and passes to correct ambiguities, omissions and errors found in statutes. In this case it is about changing legislation that refers to Her Majesty because, as we know, the monarch of England, who also presides over Australia, passed away – that is, Queen Elizabeth – and there is now a King who has taken on that role. So basically this statute bill is about making the necessary changes to a whole lot of pieces of legislation to ensure that they reflect the current-day situation, which is that we have a monarch that is a male rather than a female. In doing that, there have also been some minor changes and updates in language, but again it is all about modernising the legislation – the way it is said. It does not change the legislation in any way, it just modernises it and also takes account of the change in the monarch, as we have said.

This updating of statutes, laws, happens all over the world. In terms of the current situation with the change of monarch, there have been similar changes in other countries across the world in order to reflect what the situation is now. If people want to go to the legislation, they will see that this bill is actually making changes and amendments to many, many pieces of legislation. But we do it through one bill for efficiency and to make sure that it is done in a consistent way across all those pieces of legislation that refer to ‘Her Majesty’. It will now be ‘His Majesty’ as a result of the change.

Now, the opposition, as I said, has talked a lot about whether this is about the Andrews Labor government trying to infiltrate the system and, on the sly, trying to make Victoria a republic. Of course we cannot do that. That is federal legislation; it is in the federal constitution. This is the old fear campaign to try to get some sort of political mileage rather than supporting legislation that is both practical and necessary to ensure that we are accurately reflecting who is the king or queen of the time and to make sure that the legislation is up to date and reflects what is going on.

The opposition have made such a big deal out of some of these amendments, saying that the word ‘Majesty’ being taken out of the legislation in a few spots – but it is also kept in many others – somehow or other is going to have such a big meaning. I think about the opposition’s stance on the current proposed referendum on the Voice for Aboriginal people and also recognition for Indigenous people in the constitution –

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member has strayed from the legislation before us today. I ask you to bring the member back to the legislation before us. It has been a narrow debate. Please keep her on track.

Paul Edbrooke: On the point of order, Speaker, the member clearly has not been listening. I have been listening very specifically to the member, and the member has not strayed far from the debate at all. It has been a wideranging debate, but the member has been very, very focused on the bill at hand.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Thank you. The member for Thomastown was responding to arguments that had been raised previously in the debate, and I ask her to continue.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY: Thank you, Acting Speaker. As I was saying, the opposition are making a big deal of the changes that we are talking about and saying somehow or other they are going to water down the monarchy or imply that we are not continuing as a monarchy in this country. Yet if we look at the current referendum that is being proposed, when we are talking about a Voice for Indigenous people or we are talking about recognition of our First Nations people –

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, similar to my previous point of order, the legislation that is before us has nothing to do with the Voice referendum. I ask you to bring the member back to the legislation that is before us today, which is the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I think the member on the opposition side is trying to undermine your original ruling, which was that I can continue to speak. It is just the same point of order that it was before, questioning what you have already determined.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Thank you, member for Thomastown. I did rule on the point of order previously. It was the same point of order. The debate is about the statute law amendment bill. The member has been speaking for her entire contribution in relation to the bill at hand and was responding to points which have been raised during the debate. The member is entitled to use examples within that context of the debate, but I would ask her to make that point and then come back to the bill.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY: What I was trying to put is that the opposition is saying that the word changes or some of the omissions that have been proposed in this statute bill are very important. Words are very important in legislation or in anything else, but in the case of the coming referendum the opposition is arguing that the recognition of First Peoples is unimportant and of no consequence because it does not actually do anything. I am just sort of highlighting the hypocrisy that the opposition is showing when it comes to the legislation that we are debating today, which is really just about making sure legislation is technically correct based on the current-day circumstances.

Another area we could talk about in terms of the changes that we are making here regarding ‘His Majesty’ rather than ‘Her Majesty’ is whether we should also be making amendments around gender-neutral terms. Instead of saying ‘His Majesty’ or ‘Her Majesty’ perhaps we could say something such as ‘the Crown’, but we are not always able to do this. It would take a much more thorough updating of the legislation, and it would have more consequences. That is why we are continuing with ‘His Majesty’ or ‘Her Majesty’ rather than looking at gender-neutral terms so that in the future we do not need to come back and address this legislation again and again based on the gender of the person in the role, in terms of the monarchy.

In going back to the legislation that we are talking about here, there really is not a lot that needs to be said other than that it is required because of the change in circumstances. I did previously support the change to become a republic, but that was defeated. We all have to accept that and continue to operate under the system that we have, and that is what we are doing in Victoria. This legislation is really just about making sure that our legislation is up to date and is fit for purpose. It ensures that we are updating references and making changes as the world changes.

We see a lot of legislation come through this Parliament that it is all about updating and making the language more accessible and more modern and not necessarily always about changing how things are or what we are doing in the world or in Victoria, and this is that type of legislation. It is modernising, updating and reflecting the change in circumstances, and that is the change in the gender of the monarch because of the passing of Queen Elizabeth. This is really just the opposition trying to play games, make stuff up and be mischievous, I guess, which is what they are trying to do because they seem to be failing in all other aspects of trying to win government in Victoria.

Annabelle CLEELAND (Euroa) (11:39): 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 II. It changes references from ‘Her Majesty’ to ‘His Majesty’ and from ‘Queen’ to ‘King’ and so forth in line with the accession of His Majesty King Charles III. These changes are necessary; however, they could easily have come in the form of a straightforward piece of legislative housekeeping.

But instead we have been presented with this bill. This is a bill that is biting off more than it can chew. It is filled with amendments that go far beyond its original remit and intention and far beyond what is necessary in this situation. Some amendments reflect the need to modernise Victoria’s statute books – for example, the removal of references to ‘Esquire’. However, there are other amendments that appear to remove references to the sovereign with no valid reason. This is a major area of concern for this bill, considering that Australia remains a constitutional monarchy. 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.

Despite this, Labor appears to have seen this bill and the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as an opportunity to diminish the role of the monarch as our sovereign. Some examples of these changes include the Attorney-General and solicitor-general both having lost their references to the sovereign, as have the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader. Instead of a simple change from ‘Her Majesty’ to ‘His Majesty’ we have seen an unnecessary and deceptive flurry of changes. Oaths of affirmation done by police officers, protective services officers and special constables will also have references to the sovereign removed. ‘Lady the Queen’ does not get changed to a ‘King’ equivalent, and ‘Her Majesty’s peace’ is now simply ‘the peace’. No matter what your thoughts are on this – it does not matter if you are a republican or a monarchist – we cannot just diminish or change the system through some sneaky legislation. This is a matter for the Australian people.

Turning Australia into a republic is still part of the Labor Party platform, so perhaps it is understandable the government is seeking to chip away little by little towards this goal, beginning with references to the monarch in our statute books. Unfortunately it is hard to find a valid reason for many of these changes, hence the coalition moving a series of amendments to this bill to bring it back to its original intent and repair Labor’s legislative overreach. These amendments would simply update the bill to reflect what should have been done in the first place: a simple substitution of terms to reflect the accession of King Charles III in our statute books. This can be achieved by simple, like-for-like swaps in terminology. We do not need to shy away from the fact Australia is a constitutional monarchy and that we are part of the Commonwealth.

Now, while we are on the topic of the King, I want to recognise some of the people in my community who were recognised with honours in the King’s Birthday awards recently. Three Euroa electorate residents were among nearly 1200 Australians celebrated in the honours list for 2023. These were Sandy MacKenzie of Avenel, Kathy Grigg of Euroa and Pat McNamara of Nagambie. Both Mr MacKenzie and Mr McNamara were appointed Members of the Order of Australia, in part for their services as longstanding Nationals politicians. Ms Grigg received hers for significant service to financial governance, tertiary education and the agricultural industry. I want to congratulate these three outstanding community members on receiving these well-deserved awards. As long-time contributors to our local area these recognitions are a testament to the hard work and time they have all committed to our region.

Ms Grigg has had longstanding ties to the local community, holding a role as community representative for Euroa Health and doing exceptional things for the local area. In this role Ms Grigg has campaigned for the hospital’s ongoing financial success and dedicated years of service, advice and expertise to the schools.

The honours list citation for Mr Pat McNamara states that the Nagambie resident received his Order of Australia Medal for significant service to rowing, to the Parliament of Victoria and to the community through a range of roles. Mr McNamara was a National Party MP in the Victorian Parliament from 1982 to 2000, and from 1992 to 1999 he served as the Victorian Nationals leader and Deputy Premier of Victoria. Before his career in state politics he worked in farming, real estate and local politics as a Goulburn Valley shire councillor from 1974 to 1978 and as president from 1977 to 1978. Mr McNamara has also had a long association with rowing. After serving as Nagambie Rowing Club captain during the 1970s and 80s he served as Rowing Australia president from 2000 to 2009, Commonwealth Rowing Association president from 2000 to 2005 and Oceania Rowing Association chairman from 2010 to 2014. He also served as Rowing Victoria president and is presently a Rowing Australia Victorian councillor.

The last King’s Birthday recognition is for Mr Sandy MacKenzie, who received his award for significant service to the people and Parliament of Australia, to education and to conservation. Mr MacKenzie was a federal MP serving as a National Country Party member for Calare in New South Wales from 1975 to 1983. After his career in politics Mr MacKenzie was involved with Landcare at a local, state and national council level. He spent six years on the board of the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority and represented Landcare Australia at the Prime Minister’s summit for drought as well as, in 2020, presenting to hearings of the fire and national diseases inquiries. He joined the Australian Council for Children and Parenting in the early 2000s and has continued to be an inspiration to many in our region.

Congratulations to Sandy MacKenzie, Kathy Grigg and Pat McNamara for your contributions to our region. I hope that in the future we will see these awards continue to be recognised and they will continue to have the reference to the sovereign in them despite what this bill might want to achieve.

We are already aware the Labor Party is eager for a republic, and they have also made it very clear they do not want anything to do with the Commonwealth, including the sporting events. Labor’s embarrassing handling of the Commonwealth Games was a slap in the face for regional Victorians and just a massive blow in general for the whole of regional Victoria. So far we have only heard about a vague package for the regions that is clearly an attempt to appease the ripped-off regional communities. Housing is a priority for our regional areas and a patch-up commitment to build just 1300 homes will not be enough, nor can we trust that it will actually happen.

Nina Taylor: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I would put forward to the chamber the proposition that perhaps the member for Euroa could adhere to the premise of the bill. I fear that she is straying in a different direction. Thank you very much.

Emma Kealy: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, as the honourable Chair pointed out to the previous speaker, this has been a wideranging debate. You ruled in favour of the government at that time, and I do ask for consistency from the Chair in ruling. I ask you to allow the member to continue.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): I am very pleased that you consider me honourable, but the member for Euroa has been given a very long leeway in terms of the discussion of the bill to date. There were a number of points that the previous member had been responding to, debates or issues that had been raised within the debate, and I do ask the member for Euroa to come back to the bill or to respond to other parts of the debate that have already been raised.

Annabelle CLEELAND: I would love to contribute more regarding the Commonwealth Games, but I will move on.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the member for Kew for her outstanding contribution to this bill. I think her extensive research and scrutiny of what this government has done has highlighted the sneakiness and distrust of their behaviour, so the coalition is moving a series of amendments to this bill to bring it back to its original intent and repair Labor’s legislative overreach. These amendments seek to update the bill to reflect what should have been brought back before this Parliament: a simple substitution of terms to reflect the accession of King Charles III in our statute book. With these amendments the bill will be a straightforward matter of legislative housekeeping 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 and His Majesty, King and Queen, like for like. If those opposite do not take the opportunity to support these amendments, they need to ask themselves why.

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. I must bring it back that while this government does not like the Commonwealth, it is still devastating to understand the neglect of regional Victoria and the ending of the Commonwealth Games, which was touted as the magical golden ticket for our regional towns, spruiking the games as a sign of finally committing to our country communities.

Paul Edbrooke: Come on, Willy Wonka. Sit down.

Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (11:49): It is my pleasure to rise to speak on the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023. Yesterday in the government business program debate yesterday I stated that this bill is not the most earth-shattering piece of legislation this place has ever seen. It is not legislation which may make a material difference to the lives of Victorians per se, but it is an important bill nonetheless. Statute law amendment is a longstanding and common feature of parliamentary legislative practice, with the purpose –

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I know it is not parliamentary to do this; however, at the end of the contribution by the member for Euroa, the member for Frankston said, ‘Come on, Willy Wonka. Sit down.’ It is entirely inappropriate for any member of this place to reflect on a woman based on what she is dressed in. This is typical of what we see from the Andrews Labor government. While I cannot take offence on behalf of the member, I would urge you to speak to the member about appropriate respect for women in this place but also appropriate commentary across the chamber, because calling anybody names is not something that any member of this Parliament should be undertaking.

Paul Edbrooke: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, anyone in this chamber who feels like they have been offended is entitled to stand up in this chamber and say that. I think the member that just spoke and raised this point of order might be a little bit confused. At the end of the member’s statement the member referenced a golden ticket – Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Roald Dahl – and that was all there was to it. There was no reflection on that member themselves.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Member for Lowan, I did not hear the member for Frankston. I can refer the matter to the Speaker for her assessment.

Daniela DE MARTINO: Where was I? Statute law amendment is a longstanding and common feature of parliamentary legislative practice, with the purpose of addressing formal issues, making editorial changes and modernising drafting styles. This statute law amendment will change all references to ‘Her Majesty the Queen’ to ‘His Majesty the King’ across all affected legislation in our state and will ensure that each Victorian act therefore is accurate and reflects the fact that the head of state is now a man, namely King Charles III. I have lost a bit of time there with the point of order, so I might skip some of my history lessons that I was really excited about introducing.

Members interjecting.

Daniela DE MARTINO: Oh, okay. The old history teacher in me does find it quite interesting that we have only had four changes of sovereign gender in the time that Victoria has been a state as we know it today. The first time was in 1837 with the ascension of Queen Victoria to the throne, and the fourth time was obviously last year when King Charles III ascended to the throne. You have to go back, prior to Queen Victoria, 234 years for the last change of gender, to 1603, when Elizabeth I died and was replaced by James I. So it does not happen that often, but it has happened.

Queen Elizabeth II reigned for 70 years, and her passing was certainly the end of an era. It was a period of time, those 70 years, which saw significant world events and shifting attitudes. I have been an avowed republican for as long as I can remember, but I do have to say I held the Queen in high regard as a woman very much in a man’s world who held her own. Her sense of duty and dedication to a role which she never even chose was beyond admirable. I do not know how many of us could have done what she did for as long as she did.

At the time of her ascension to the throne Australia was very much still wedded to Britain. Our currency was in pounds and shillings, we sang God Save the Queen as our national anthem and our trade was predominantly with the United Kingdom, to the extent that when the UK entered the European Economic Community in 1973, the impact on our agricultural sector and exports as a nation was devastating. Our red meat, butter and sugar exports dropped dramatically overnight. The UK was one of Australia’s largest export destinations for red meat, the largest market for butter and a major destination also for cheese exports. The UK made a decision 50 years ago, which it was well within its rights to do, to link itself with Europe at the expense of Australia’s trade and economy.

I will leave my comments regarding the UK’s uncoupling from Europe in recent years – or Brexit, as it is more commonly known – for another time. This is not meant to be a lesson on European politics, even though that was my major at university, but I use this information to highlight a mere smattering of some significant changes which have occurred in Australia and, by extension, Victoria to our relationship with the United Kingdom over the past 71 years. What did remain a constant, though, was the fact that our head of state, as well as theirs, was Queen Elizabeth II. That obviously changed last September with her passing. The Elizabethan era has ended and a new Carolean one has begun. It is therefore apt that our statutes are updated to reflect not only the change in gender of the monarch but in the process some antiquated terms that need modernising as well.

Now, I note that the opposition is opposing some of the modernisation of the terms, as if there is some kind of plot to create a republic of Victoria by stealth. Apart from the fact that it is clearly impossible for this to be done, it is not the intention at all. As my good friend the member for Greenvale elucidated in great detail in his contribution to this debate, several of the terms to be omitted or replaced are of a different era and have little place in a modern country with modern drafting of legislation. I would like to address the opposition’s concerns; I do hope they are listening. For example, the oath of police officers – several of them have expressed concerns, commencing yesterday with the member for Kew, that the bill amends all three oaths to omit all references to ‘Lady the Queen’ and substitute those references to ‘Her Majesty’s peace’ with ‘the peace’. The member for Kew stated it was:

… 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.

The concern from the opposition is that the changes seek to diminish the role of the sovereign in our political and legal system. The member for Mornington also echoed this, as did the member for Euroa. Now, I would like to assuage the concerns of the opposition in this regard, and I do so with some facts. Twenty-one years ago in the United Kingdom the Police Reform Act 2002 changed their oath. The prior oath stated:

I, ……… of ……… do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve Our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of constable, without favour or affection, malice or ill will –

it continues –

and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty’s subjects …

The revised form, which was adopted in 2002, now reads:

I … do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen –

not our sovereign ‘Lady the Queen’, simply ‘the Queen’ –

in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property …

which removes the prior reference to ‘persons and properties of Her Majesty’s subjects’. That is in the United Kingdom, and the reason for the change came from the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales, on which all of the police main police organisations are represented, who stated that:

… the wording of the attestation should be changed to make it clear that police officers had a duty to uphold the rights of and protect everyone living or staying in the country, not just Her Majesty’s subjects.

So I will say once again: we can assuage the concerns of the opposition by the fact that the United Kingdom itself adopted the changes and replaced the wording ‘our Lady the Queen’ with simply ‘the Queen’, and removed references to ‘Her Majesty’s subjects’ to broaden the terms and make them more applicable to all within the country at any point in time, not just subjects of the sovereign.

Guess what happened when they adopted the changes two decades ago? The sky did not fall in, and they remain a constitutional monarchy. So I can say with a fair degree of certainty that the changes this amendment bill proposes will also not cause the collapsing in of the sky. Short of a federal referendum on becoming a republic, which needs to be passed by all of us in a majority of states, nothing, not even this fairly innocuous bill, will result in changes to our status as a constitutional monarchy or will affect our relationship with the monarchy or the United Kingdom.

Now, I note, as I said, that some of this time has been lost, so I do hope that my contribution has been illuminating for all members of the chamber, in particular the opposition. Do not feel threatened by this act. Please do not feel threatened; we are not here to create a republic by stealth, we are merely adopting changes which are accurate and reflect modern drafting terms. And with that, thank you.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (11:59): The effect of this bill is mostly to replace ‘her’ with ‘his’ in an act of grammatical housekeeping, much like changing the soap and towels in the palace loo. Had the member for Kew not pointed out a few changes that remove some references to the sovereign, the Greens may not have bothered to vote on this bill at all. However, we are indebted to the member for pointing out that, in a very small way, there are changes that she says ‘seek to diminish the role of the sovereign in our political and legal system’. I am sorry that the member for Monbulk has departed, but if this was part of an undeclared Labor plot to rid this state of the trappings of the monarchy, then we are witnessing the beginning of history’s slowest revolution given the small scale of the changes. Nevertheless, any diminution of the role of the English sovereign is something the Greens can get behind, and so the Greens support this bill.

Paul MERCURIO (Hastings) (12:00): I am happy to rise and speak to the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023. I might just note I have been listening to the arguments, or to the debates, yesterday and today, and they certainly have been incredibly wideranging. I am amazed and bewildered by some of the directions they have gone in, and I certainly plan to stand up and take a very different direction in my debate. I looked at this bill, and actually I would also like to say that I do not support the amendment by the member for Kew. I do not think it is necessary. I think this bill is very straightforward, as a lot of members in this chamber have said. It is basically taking the words ‘Her Majesty the Queen’ and changing them to ‘His Majesty the King’. When I first read this bill I did not think anyone would oppose it, so I am quite surprised that there has been such a wide range of debate and also wide range of argument, and some of it has been good and some has not.

This bill does not change anything. I think the member for Albert Park said very well that this is about making the bills and the acts clear and accurate and relevant. It is not going to change the way we work in Parliament, it is not going to change the way we make decisions, it is not going to change things for the public and what is going on; it is merely correcting ambiguities and omissions and errors that are found in statutes. So it is not groundbreaking. It does affect about 35 different bills or acts, and I think it is necessary to make those changes. If we do not make those changes, then we could have some issues moving forward. I also want to mention what the member for Frankston said and agree; I do not really understand. He said he did not understand the absurd claim that this bill was perhaps an attempt to move away from the monarchy. I do not see that, and certainly I do not think it is about moving towards a republic either. I think quite simply it is about changing words.

When I think about that, that is what inspired me to stand up and talk to this bill. This is about changing words. Also we had the member for Greenvale talk about the fact that it is about language. I am going to take it a little bit further and say it is about words, and it is about power words. As we know in this chamber, words are incredibly important: the way we use them, the way we throw them at each other, the way we can lead by example by being respectful with our words. But this is about, for me, power words. I have got to say that certainly ‘Her Majesty the Queen’ and ‘His Majesty the King’ are not really big power words, but they do have the ability to change how we work in this Parliament, and that is why we do need to change them.

When I started thinking about words – I guess this is why I actually wanted to stand up and have a go at debating this – I did a little bit of research and looked into some quotes about words and power words. The one that I found that spoke to me the loudest and that I think is really important is a quote by Pythagoras. He said, ‘The oldest, shortest words – yes and no – are those which require the most thought.’ I really like that, especially when you consider what is coming up possibly in October. I am not here to debate the referendum at all; what I am here to talk about is just the power of words. Pythagoras said that the two simplest, most powerful words we have really require the most amount of thought when we use them, and that is great.

Sometimes we look at ‘no’ as a negative word. But when you say no to hate, when you say no to racism, when you say no to bigotry, when you say no to inequality, it is an incredibly strong, positive power word. It is the same with ‘yes’. ‘Yes’ is such a beautiful word. I like it when you say, ‘Do you love me?’ ‘Yes.’ Sorry for using ‘you’, Deputy Speaker – I was looking at you when I asked.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair.

Paul MERCURIO: You do not need to respond. I do apologise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am touched, but –

Paul MERCURIO: I will keep that. ‘Yes’ is such a positive, affirming statement. There is nothing negative about it, and to me there is something inherently honest about it. I go back to the words used by various people around the referendum and the simple power words ‘Vote yes’. What wonderful, clear, affirming, positive, thoughtful words. Pythagoras would be incredibly happy with that. It has thought, it has meaning, it has strength. Unfortunately I go to the other set of words that are being used, and that is ‘If you don’t know, vote no.’ Now, Pythagoras would be rolling in his grave at the thought that anyone would say no without thinking, without giving it consideration, without giving it thought, so I am sorry, Pythagoras. But also, that phrase is so insipid. It is a double negative. It is not going to get anyone anywhere. They are not power words at all.

Just getting back to where I was at, as Pythagoras would say, we really need to put thought into our words, otherwise we are lost as a society, I believe. We need to respect our words. It is unfortunate that in this place, and often on the other side, words tumble out of people’s mouths, they cascade to the floor and they are wasted. It is really important that we think about what we are talking about and what we are saying to each other and that we have respect for each other and the words that we use. I think it is important that we give the words the power that they deserve.

When I am thinking about power words, another thing that I have been thinking about is the acknowledgement of country. I just want to state that the first two words of the acknowledgement are so beautiful and so powerful: ‘I acknowledge’. In those two words there is no hubris, there is no ego, there is no negativity. What there is –

Emma Kealy: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I realise this has been quite a wideranging debate, but I think we have strayed significantly from the bill in front of us, and I ask you to bring the member back to the statute law bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate that I have heard on this bill both yesterday and today has been extremely wideranging, and I ask the member to continue. There is no point of order, but on the bill would be advantageous.

Paul MERCURIO: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I do find it interesting in looking at debates and the fact that this Parliament is a democracy we all have very significant different points of view. I did consider doing this debate in interpretive dance, but I did not think that would work, although –

A member: A bit of freestyle.

Paul MERCURIO: A bit of freestyle, but I would have had to use the whole room.

A member interjected.

Paul MERCURIO: I could still. But my point there is that in this democracy the way each individual looks at debates is really interesting. We have heard an incredibly wide range of contributions, and I have been surprised by some of the directions people have taken, and amused. I hope I might be amusing some people with this, but I still say this debate and this bill are about the power of words. There is power in changing the words ‘Her Majesty the Queen’ to ‘His Majesty the King’, so that is the direction that I am taking, and I only have 1 minute left.

I just wanted to say on the acknowledgement that a lot of people ask why we say the acknowledgement so much. It is just a pure affirmation. I have found over my period of being in Parliament and on council that saying this affirmation, these power words, has taken me closer to the First Nations people, and I think that is a really important thing. That is why we are here. I will not even start talking about the power words of the Uluru statement. I am hoping everyone has read it. If Pythagoras could read it, he would be incredibly pleased.

In finishing my wideranging debate, I just want to bring it back and say for me it is about the power of words. Whether it is about the power of acknowledgement, whether it is about the powerful and simple words of ‘yes’ or ‘no’, or whether it is about the powerful words of ‘Her Majesty the Queen’ or ‘His Majesty the King’, words are important. We should use them wisely. We should use them with thought and consideration. I commend this bill to the house.

Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (12:10): As a lifelong and committed Australian republican, I rise to speak on the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023. This bill will amend 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. The bill is not groundbreaking, as the member for Monbulk said earlier, but it is important to ensure that our legislation is accurate. As we know, Queen Elizabeth II passed away on 8 September 2022, and the Queen was on the throne for over 70 years. Whatever we think of the institution of the monarchy, which also represents our head of state, Victorians held great affection and respect for Queen Elizabeth II. As the Premier stated on 9 September 2022, the day after the Queen passed away:

Very few of us know a world without The Queen in it.

Her presence spanned countries, cultures, language, and continents – her reign transcended decades and generations.

And like no monarch before her, she captured our hearts and our affection.

We treasured her, and the entire world respected her.

In this context, as part of my contribution, I would like to just touch on how much Victoria has changed since Queen Elizabeth II was first crowned on 2 June 1953 to when her son King Charles, His Majesty, was crowned on 6 May 2023. Over this 70-year period Victoria, which was established on the traditional lands of the Wurundjeri people, evolved from a largely Anglo-Celtic ethnic mix to become one of the world’s most multicultural, vibrant and diverse communities on the planet.

In 1953 the Queen’s first Australian Prime Minister was Sir Robert Menzies, the first of what I believe were 16 Australian prime ministers who served under her reign. Upon her taking the throne, John Cain Sr was the Premier of Victoria, with 12 Victorian premiers serving under the Queen’s reign too. Locally in my community Bill Bryson was the federal member for Wills, Charlie Mutton was the state member for Coburg, Peter Randles was the mayor of Brunswick and Walter Morris was the mayor of the old City of Coburg. Over the years we have had a lot of different mayors, including many from multicultural and ethnic backgrounds, such as mayor Joe Caputo, mayor Robert Larocca, mayor Annalivia Carli Hannan and mayor Lambros Tapinos. The population of Victoria as per the 1954 census was around 2.4 million people – 2.4 million – and today the state’s population of course sits at over 6.8 million.

The cultural make-up of the population at the time in the 1954 census consisted of 2.3 million Victorians identifying as British, with only 136,000 Victorians identified as ‘foreigners’, according to the census, consisting of migrants of largely Italian, Dutch, Polish and German backgrounds. 2.1 million Victorians, the overwhelming majority of people in this state, identified as Christian, and just 26,200 Victorians identified as non-Christian. Today people from all over the world have chosen to make our state their home, bringing with them their experience, their culture and their traditions. Today Victorians come from more than 200 countries, speak 260 languages and follow 135 different faiths.

As outlined by the State Library Victoria, the decade of the 1950s, which saw Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth ascend to the throne, was a decade which in many ways did set the foundations and put Victoria on the pathway to where we are today as a state and as a people. I quote from the State Library Victoria, some of which draws on some examples which I believe are still relevant today in many ways:

After the hardship and turmoil of the previous decade, the 1950s offered Victoria an improved standard of living and a shot towards ‘the suburban dream’.

Employment opportunities ramped up, a home of one’s own became an achievable feat and post-war migration programs meant Australia’s population was enriched with new arrivals from Greece, Italy, Poland, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands and more.

Peace wasn’t taken for granted, however. As well as involvement in the Korean civil war in the early 1950s –

and I note we are coming up to Vietnam Veterans Day on 18 August this week –

the Cold War had commenced and Victorians were fearful. Tensions rose due to ideological differences and anti-communist fears impacted Australian working-class politics. Compulsory military service for 18-year-old males was introduced as a security measure, in readiness for another war.

In 1956, the Summer Olympics were held in Melbourne as Australia hosted for the very first time. The Olympics were opened by the Duke of Edinburgh on November 22nd and closed on the 8th December. Australia’s medal tally was 35, placing Australia third behind USA and the Soviet Union.

Let us hope we go one further tonight with the Matildas game.

Traditions shifted when, for the first time in Melbourne, the athletes entered the stadium together during the Closing Ceremony as a symbol of global unity.

In 1958, the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders was established. This group played a large part in bringing about the 1967 referendum.

And in that respect I do acknowledge the advancement league in the seat of Northcote, which continues to undertake that important work.

The 1950s decade also saw:

Melbourne’s first Moomba parade

Television arrive in time for the 1956 Olympics

Polio vaccine produced and rolled out

Queen Elizabeth II of course arrived for the royal tour, with the Queen landing on 24 February 1954 at Essendon Airport, on the border of my electorate and with flight paths that very much go over the seat of Pascoe Vale. It is very likely she flew in over Coburg or Pascoe Vale. Nearly 1 million people at this time lined the streets to welcome the Queen on the royal road from Essendon Airport all the way to Government House in the city to make the Queen and the Duke welcome, and many of those residents from Coburg and Brunswick certainly would have been part of that welcome.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we as a nation and as a state continued to change and evolve over the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. Culturally speaking, we are now a much more independent, self-confident nation and surer of our place in the world as a nation founded on the lands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We are now one of the most multicultural nations on earth.

I actually believe the timeliness of this bill could not be any more fitting than with the Australian Matildas taking on England tonight in the FIFA World Cup semifinals. As described this week by Craig Foster, who is chair of the Australian Republican Movement and a former Socceroo:

… this game means different things to different Australians.

For some, it’s just kicking a ball.

For others, we could call this the ‘terra nullius game,’ the ‘Republic game,’ or perhaps better … the ‘historical derby,’ recognising our shared history by elevating First Nations impacts while celebrating all that is good between us and the positive legacies of our British traditions.

In fact, it is all three.

Emotionally for modern Australia, it has no greater significance than any other matches because –

many of our ties –

have long faded.

It’s simply a chance to make the FIFA Women’s World Cup Final which says everything about Australia today.

But in doing so, he says:

Let’s remember, though, that Australia’s Head of State will be barracking for the opponents.

And it’s high time that changed.

Go the Matildas, and long live the Australian republic. I commend this bill to the house.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (12:18): I too rise to speak on the Statute Law Amendment (References to the Sovereign) Bill 2023, and I would also like to, as the member for Pascoe Vale did, put on record at the outset that I am also a committed republican. But this bill does not in any way progress the movement to an Australian republic. That will be done at some future time, hopefully, and, obviously, at the decision of the Australian people. In reference to tonight’s big match, I certainly know where my allegiance will lie. Judging from some of the debate that we have heard today I do wonder whether that will be a view shared by all members of this place.

But as has been mentioned, the 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.

And there are other purposes. I do want to touch on a little bit of history, because it has been mentioned that for the duration of European settlement in Victoria the gender of the monarch has changed four times, but in fact if we look at the history and the history of this Parliament, this would be only the second time that this particular chamber has seen this debate. The colony of Victoria was not established until 1851, which obviously was after Queen Victoria acceded to the throne in 1837.

The first legislature that was established in Australia was in 1823 in New South Wales – the Legislative Council. Interestingly, it was set up not as a legislative body but as an advisory body to advise the Governor, who had at the time almost complete autocratic powers over the colony. The election of members to the Legislative Council only came about in 1843, even though the majority of members at that stage were still appointed. A fully elected Legislative Assembly only occurred – this was in New South Wales, remember – in 1856, and that was about the same time, if I am correct, that responsible government and the first elected representative body sat in this chamber. As I said, that was post 1837, so Queen Victoria was already on the throne at that stage. The next transfer came in 1901 following the death of Queen Victoria and the ascension of King Edward VII.

What else had happened in 1901 was the federation of the Australian states. It had been decided that, given that the future capital of Australia was to be located within a territory in New South Wales, the first Parliament of Australia would convene in this very place. The members of the Victorian Parliament were to convene at the Royal Exhibition Building. The debates that would have happened at that time in relation to the changing of the wording from ‘Her Majesty’ to ‘His Majesty’ would not have happened in this place. The only time that has occurred in this very place for Victorian statutes was in 1953 and then obviously today and this week. Given the next in line to the throne and the second in line to the throne are both male, I would hope that this might be the last debate that we have on this particular matter for quite some time, until such time as a republic debate recurs in this country.

There has been a lot made about terminology, particularly changes which are seen as in addition to just a simple changing of words. There seem to be particular issues with the changes to the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General Act 1972, which remove the words ‘Her Majesty’s’ from references to the Attorney-General and the solicitor-general, and the Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances and Superannuation Act 1968, which remove the title of ‘Her Majesty’s Opposition’ from both the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s title and the Leader of the Opposition’s title.

The member for Greenvale provided a terrific history on the origin of this term. As he rightly pointed out, it is not a phrase that has been used for eternity or for the life of the British Parliament. It was first coined in the 1820s and actually made as a remark in jest. It was not a serious position representing that office. I did have a look at various sources, and I thought, ‘This is obviously a really important point for the opposition, so let’s see how often it has been used.’ In fact the phrase ‘Her Majesty’s Opposition’ has not been used in Hansard since 2011. That is the last time it was referred to in Hansard. The phrase ‘Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition’ has only been used twice in the last 30 years. That is representative of how they truly see the importance of that terminology. Then I thought, ‘Maybe I will have a look at the media releases, because surely the media releases of the opposition would clearly state ‘Leader of Her Majesty’s’ – or His Majesty’s – ‘Opposition’, but I could not find anything. It was all about ‘The Leader of the Opposition states this’, ‘The Leader of the Opposition states that’ – not a single reference to His Majesty or Her Majesty’s Opposition. The Parliament website refers to the Leader of the Opposition as exactly that – the Leader of the Opposition – not the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition or previously Her Majesty’s Opposition.

Interestingly, I took the opportunity to look at the British Parliament’s website and their Hansard reports. Now, the British Parliament’s website does refer to the opposition leader as the Leader of Her Majesty’s – or His Majesty’s – Most Loyal Opposition, although that term is not usually referred to in the context of debates either. The typical reference again is ‘the opposition’ or ‘member of the opposition’ without reference to ‘Her Majesty’ and ‘His Majesty’. If it is good enough to be used in the British Parliament, surely it is good enough to be used in the Victorian Parliament, particularly when we see that the opposition, in all of the publications they put out, do not refer to that terminology at all. As a result, I think these changes are very small and incremental changes. They are changes that tidy up the reality of the current situation that we find ourselves in as a result of the passing of Queen Elizabeth II and the accession to the throne of King Charles III. With that I commend the bill to the house.

Ben CARROLL (Niddrie – Minister for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Manufacturing Sovereignty, Minister for Employment, Minister for Public Transport) (12:28): I move:

That debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.