Page 586 - Week 02 - Thursday, 19 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I saw that in many places—letters to the editor, on Facebook discussion and on Twitter discussion. All sorts of people had a lot to say about this. Because these sorts of matters are important to people because of how they represent our culture and our values, it was significantly discussed by our community and was something people really were engaged in as an issue both here in Canberra and right across the country. The community sentiment was that this was a poor decision that should not have been made.
For a lot of people it was a throwback to an earlier time, to a connection we have moved on from, but it was also a reflection of the fact that we had a perfectly good Australian honours system that celebrated the significant contributions and achievements of Australians to our community through an enormous range of fields, be it science, medicine, community service or military service. All these sorts of things were celebrated by the Australian honours system in a way that was Australian. It celebrated our culture, the culture we have developed in this country over the course of its history, and most Australians saw this as quite an odd decision. In some ways I think many people were generous enough to think of it as odd and slightly quirky and perhaps dismissed it in that space.
The appointment this year of the Duke of Edinburgh under this system has reignited the discussion and for many Australians confirmed their worst fears about the reintroduction of this sort of model as being not relevant in modern Australia. To my mind, it has underlined the need for Australia to move to a republic because it has emphasised the fact that we need to define very clearly our own Australian identity, and becoming an Australian republic is part of that. In many ways this will give new impetus to that discussion, which continues to be relevant for many people in Australia. A number of prominent Australians have commented to that effect.
We cannot and should never lose sight of our cultural connection to the United Kingdom; it is something that is obviously very dear to many Australians’ hearts, but we also need to acknowledge that Australia is much more than that. Many people from many other places have come here, and as this country has moved through its history we have started to define a uniquely Australian character, a uniquely Australian system of government, a uniquely Australian political culture and, frankly, a uniquely Australian culture. That is what we should be celebrating.
This move to reintroduce knights and dames harks back to the United Kingdom part of our history that limits the definition of what it is to be Australian. It is a move we should reject, and I am very happy to support Mr Barr’s motion today and his call on this Assembly to write to the federal parliament and the Prime Minister that this decision should be reversed and we should revert to an Australian honours system, which is a very satisfactory system for recognising the considerable achievements of many fine Australians.
I listened to the debate this morning, and it has not been a particularly edifying experience. However, I was particularly struck by the fact that Mr Hanson did not put a position on this issue. Not once did he comment on the merits of the discussion. We saw him talk about everything else, and I have seen him do this on motions I have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video