Australian republic referendum, 1999
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Australia |
This article is part of a series about the
Politics and government of Australia |
|
|
|
Executive Legislative |
|
|
|
Executive Legislative |
|
|
|
|
|
Greens · Labor · Country Liberal · Family First · Liberal · National |
|
|
|
Other countries · Atlas Politics portal |
The Australian republic referendum in 1999 was a two-question referendum held on 6 November 1999. The first question asked whether Australia should become a republic with a President appointed by Parliament, a bi-partisan appointment model which had previously been decided at a Constitutional Convention in February 1998. The second question, generally deemed to be far less important politically, asked whether Australia should alter the constitution to insert a preamble. Neither of the amendments passed.
Contents |
[edit] The divisions among the electorate
For some years opinion polls had suggested that a majority of the electorate favoured republicanism,[1] but the referendum was nonetheless comfortably defeated. The majority of analysis has advanced two main reasons for the referendum defeat:
Firstly, Australians have traditionally been cautious about proposed constitutional change: only eight of 43 referendums since 1909 have been approved by a majority of voters in a majority of states (as they must 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."[citation needed]
Second, public opinion was not (and still is not) divided in a simple yes/no manner. The major opinion groups were:
- Traditional monarchists who held their beliefs largely on principled and/or sentimental attachment to the monarchy, in part based on traditional associations with the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth of Nations and a personal identification with Elizabeth II and her family. Many were older or from rural rather than urban areas.
- Pragmatic monarchists who maintained that, whatever the argued weaknesses of the current system, it also had many strengths; following the motto of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The view of this group was that constitutional monarchy provides the basis for stable democratic government, with the Governor-General (the monarch's nominal representative) acting as an impartial, non-political "umpire" of the political process. Many distrusted the Australian political classes and believed the provision of executive powers to a local politician would result in an undesirably partisan head of state, instability, dictatorship, or a possible repeat of the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis.
- Minimal change republicans who aimed to remove the monarchy, but otherwise maintain the current system as unchanged as possible. Within this group, there were a small group of supporters of the ultra-minimalist McGarvie Model, but generally the favoured model of these groups was appointment by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of Parliament.
- Progressive republicans who wanted a popularly elected head of state.
- Radical republicans, who saw the minimal change option as purely cosmetic, and desired comprehensive revision to the current Westminster-based system. This was easily the smallest major group, but prominent in the debate.
- Tactical voters, who took a long-term view and voted against their inclinations. Many traditional and pragmatic monarchists perceived a weight of inevitability and voted "yes" to the minimalist republic in order to avoid a more radical republic. Many sentimental republicans voted "no" in the hope of a more radical or populist proposal winning a future referendum.
- The Uncommitted — as in all electorates, a large proportion of the electorate remained unattached to either side. (Uncommitted 'swinging voters' are often the decisive force in shaping referendums results and election outcomes in democracies worldwide.)
[edit] Alternative methods for selecting a president
- Election
- by the federal Parliament alone
- by federal and state Parliaments (as in India)
- by a popular vote (as in the Republic of Ireland)
- Selection
- by the Prime Minister
- by consensus among the Government and Opposition
- by a constitutional council (known as the McGarvie Model)
Different groups within the republican cause expressed views as to which one was preferable. Some were committed to one option exclusively.
[edit] The two sides
[edit] The 'Yes' side
The "yes" campaign was divided in detail but nevertheless managed to present a fairly united and coherent message, and was notable for unlikely alliances between traditional opponents - former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser gave joint statements, for example. Many other prominent Australians also endorsed the yes vote - which, however, led to claims that the movement was "elitist" in sentiment and led by politicians rather than people. Viewing the case for a republic as fairly self-evident and broadly supported by the Australian populace, their advertising concentrated mainly on the positive symbolism of the republican case. The "yes" campaign was also viewed as having the support of the popular Australian media; British politician and journalist Bill Deedes said in The Daily Telegraph in 1999: "I have rarely attended elections in any country, certainly not a democratic one, in which the newspapers have displayed more shameless bias. One and all, they determined that Australians should have a republic and they used every device towards that end."[2]
[edit] The 'No' side
The organised "no" campaign was a mixture of monarchist groups such as Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM) and the Australian Monarchist League. Additionally it included some republican groups who did not feel that the proposed model was satisfactory, in particular they thought the people should elect the President. Headed by Kerry Jones of ACM, the "no" campaign concentrated on the perceived flaws of the model on offer, considering those who supported the "yes" push as "elites", and skilfully managing to appeal both to those apprehensive about the change on one hand, and those feeling the model didn't go far enough on the other. Their advertising emphasised voting no to "this republic", implying to direct-election supporters that a model more to their preferences was likely to be put in the future.
The common elements within the no campaign were the view that the model proposed was undemocratic and would lead to a "politician's republic," playing to a general distrust of politicians. "No" campaigners called for further consultation, while remaining non-specific on what steps were needed to ensure this.
[edit] The questions and results
[edit] Republic question
The questions of being a republic put to electors was whether they approved of:
A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
[edit] Preamble question
Electors were also asked to vote on a second question at the 1999 referendum which asked whether they approved of:
A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.
The preamble would then have read
- With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good.
- We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:
- proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;
- never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;
- upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;
- honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;
- recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;
- mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;
- supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;
- and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.
[edit] Results
In order to pass, each question required a majority 'Yes' vote, as well as a majority of States (four or more) to have a majority 'Yes' vote. Voters in the territories only count towards the national vote.
| State/Territory | Republic 'Yes' vote | Preamble 'Yes' vote |
| New South Wales | 46.43% | 42.14% |
| Victoria | 49.84% | 42.46% |
| Queensland | 37.44% | 32.81% |
| Western Australia | 41.48% | 34.73% |
| South Australia | 43.57% | 38.10% |
| Tasmania | 40.37% | 35.67% |
| Australian Capital Territory* | 63.27% | 43.61% |
| Northern Territory* | 48.77% | 38.52% |
| National total | 45.13% | 39.34% |
* Territories, which are not counted for the majority of States.
[edit] Analysis of results
Roughly 55% of the nation voted "no" and all states voted "no". 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 constitutional monarchy; but wealthy city electorates mostly voted "yes", and blue-ribbon Labor seats in working-class suburbs voted "no". The failure of the opinion pollsters to pick up these trends has caused many people to question their methodology.
[edit] Reactions
The outcome was met with angst by the republicans. Some, notably Australian Republican Movement president Malcolm Turnbull, spoke bitterly in the aftermath, blaming Prime Minister Howard in particular for their defeat. Later Mr Turnbull became a high ranking minister in the Howard Government and in 2008 became Leader of the Federal Liberal Party. Despite the hopes of more radical republicans such as Phil Cleary, the referendum defeat was generally viewed as a setback for the republican cause and no further referendums on the subject were mooted by the Howard Government.
"Whatever else he [Prime Minister Howard] achieves, history will remember him for one thing. He was the prime minister who broke this nation's heart."
– Malcolm Turnbull, on the night the Republic referendum was defeated
ACM leader Kerry Jones called for citizens to accept the result and go forward "as a united nation". In recent years some republicans have called for a second referendum, proposing either a different style of presidency or a more generalised "republic or monarchy" question as a "first step" to removing the monarchy.
[edit] Analysis of the defeated referendum
On the face of things, with republican models of one form or another winning a majority in opinion polls, it might have been expected that the republican referendum would pass comfortably. However, it was the particular form of the republic offered which was criticised as the main reason for the defeat of the referendum. Supporters of the republic disagreed about the best proposed mechanism for replacing the monarch and Governor-General with either a head of state appointed by the Parliament (which was widely criticised as being undemocratic), or with a directly-elected head of state (which was widely criticised as moving Australia away from the proven Westminster System toward an American-style presidential system, even though many Parliamentary republics directly elect non-executive Presidents).
The model with an appointed head of state was the one endorsed by the Constitutional Convention and put forward at the referendum. It was broadly supported by both minimalist and establishment republicans, including almost all Labor and some conservative politicians. Progressive republicans in the general community opposed the indirect elected model urging people to vote against the referendum. It was opposed by monarchists of both kinds, although republicans claim that some voted for it as the Convention's recommended model because they saw it as the model least likely to succeed.
However, all voting at the Convention was open and was recorded in Hansard.[3] Hansard shows that 73 delegates voted in favour, 57 against and 22 abstained. Not one constitutional monarchist delegate voted in favour. The policy of ACM and other monarchist groups was to oppose all republican models, including the minimalist McGarvie model. Some conservatives argued this would be the easiest model to defeat in a referendum and therefore should be supported at the Convention. Had the monarchists followed this advice the McGarvie model would have prevailed at the Convention. A number of republicans who supported direct election abstained from the vote (such as Ted Mack, Phil Cleary, Clem Jones and Andrew Gunter), thereby allowing the bi-partisan model to succeed. They reasoned that the model would be defeated at a referendum, and a second referendum called with direct election as the model[4].
Although the motion was passed by ignoring those who abstained, the referendum model did not enjoy the support of the majority of delegates, a condition which the Prime Minister had indicated for a referendum. Because the model was overwhelmingly supported by the republican delegates,the Prime Minister decided[5] to put that model to the referendum, a decision enthusiastically acclaimed by the ARM delegates and the media.
The republicans believed the tactical voters in the electorate (those who voted No even though they supported a republic in principle because they preferred a direct election) were much higher than counted in previous polls. Many have decided that a referendum offering a directly elected head of state would succeed;
It is overwhelmingly clear that the Australian people want the head of state directly elected, and if that's what they want they should have it. I actually then began to think that there might be good reasons for direct popular election, that the people might actually be right. --Professor Tony Blackshield[6]
[edit] References
- ^ "Newspoll: January 2007 republic poll (PDF)". http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/0103%20republic.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-02-17.
- ^ Deeds, Bill; The Daily Telegraph; 8 November 1999
- ^ http://www.aph.gov.au/Hansard/conv/con1302.pdf,page982
- ^ Malcolm Turnbull (1999). Fighting For the Republic. HGB. p. 32.
- ^ Ihttp://www.aph.gov.au/Hansard/conv/con1302.pdf, page 986
- ^ The Australian Republic Issue: A Guide (Issues and Opinions)
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
|
|||||||||||
