This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tannin (talk | contribs) at 11:15, 27 February 2003 (link to Republic Advisory Committee). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:15, 27 February 2003 by Tannin (talk | contribs) (link to Republic Advisory Committee)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Australian republicanism is a movement within Australia to sever ties with the monarchy. Australia and its states, though each is a separate constitutional monarchy, share the same monarch with each other and with the United Kingdom. In practice, the monarch has no real power in Australia: he or she appoints the Governor General and the state governors; but only on the advice of a Prime Minister or Premier. Australian republicans, notably through the Australian Republican Movement have sought to abolish this last remaining formal link with the crown.
Toward the end of the 20th Century the Keating Government put forward plans to prepare a revised constitution to take effect on the centenary of federation - January 1st 2001. The preparation of the proposal by a part-elected, part appointed constitutional convention in February 1998 was hurried and (according to critics) bungled. Many republicans claimed that incoming Prime Minister John Howard, in his own words an "unashamed royalist", sabotaged the preparation process deliberately: a claim he indignantly denied.
For years, opinion polls had clearly showed that the majority of the electorate favoured severing ties with the monarchy, but the Novembner 1999 republican referendum was soundly defeated even so. There were two main reasons for this. First, Australians have traditionally been very suspicious of proposed constitutional changes of any kind: only 8 out of 43 referenda since 1909 have been approved by a majority of voters in a majority of states (as they must be to succeed). In Sir Robert Menzies' words, "to get an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is one of the labours of Hercules."
Second, public opinion was not (and still is not) divided in a simple yes/no manner. The major opinion groups were:
- Traditional royalists who were said to hold their beliefs on largely sentimental grounds. Many were older or from rural rather than urban areas.
- Pragmatic royalists who maintained that, whatever the absurdities of the current system, it had served the country well and it would be foolish to change a practical, working system.
- Minimal change republicans who aimed to replace the monarch with a locally-appointed head of state, but otherwise maintain the current system as unchanged as possible.
- Moderate change republicans who aimed to replace the monarch with an elected head of state.
- Radical republicans, who saw the minimal change option as purely cosmetic. This was easily the smallest major group, but prominent in the debate.
On the face of things, with republicans of one form or another in the clear majority, it might have been expected that the republican referendum would pass comfortably. However, few mainstream republicans were wholly agreed about the proposed mechanisms for replacing the monarch with either an appointed head of state (which was widely criticised as being undemocratic), or with an elected head of state (which was widely criticised as moving Australia away from the Westminster System toward an American-style presidential system).
The former model (with an appointed head) was the one endorsed by the constitutional convention and put forward at the referendum. It was broadly supported by both minimal-change and moderate republicans, including almost all Labour and a majority of conservative politicians, and opposed by royalists of both kinds and the radical republicans (who reasoned that a simple cosmetic removal of the monarchy would make more far-reaching and substantial changes impossible).
The "yes" campaign was divided in detail but managed to present a reasonably united and coherent message, and was notable for unlikely alliances between traditional opponents - former Labour Prime Minister Bob Hawke and former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser gave joint statements, for example. The "no" campaign was much more divided in its messages, and several times produced the extraordinary spectacle of hard-core conservatives sharing a podium with far left radicals. They were however united in their central message; vote no.
The result of the poll was clear: roughly 55% of the nation voted "no" and in only one territory (the Australian Capital Territory) was there a "yes" majority. This was broadly as expected, the real surprise was the distribution of the votes: as expected, traditionally conservative states and rural areas were strongholds for the monarchy; but wealthy city electorates mostly voted "yes", and blue-ribbon Labour seats in working-class suburbs voted "no".
The outcome was met with angst by the republicans. Some, notably Australian Republican Movement president Malcolm Turnbull, spoke bitterly and divisively in the aftermath, blaming Prime Minister Howard in particular. Most monarchists were content to accept the victory and keep a low profile. Australians for Constitutional Monarchy leader Kerry Jones, for example, called for citizens to accept it and go forward "as a united nation". It was left to radical republican leader Phil Cleary to explain the unexpectedly strong "no" in the inner suburbs that tipped the balance: it was not, he said, "a vote for a foreign head of state or some crumbling hereditary family. It was a vote for participation in the political system."
It is widely expected that a further referendum will take place eventially, although public agitation for such a move has faded away in the years since the referendum was defeated. While opinion polls suggest a majority of Australians favour some form of republic, there is no agreement as to the form a republic should take.