The 1999 Australian republic referendum was a two question referendum held on 6 November 1999. The first question asked whether Australia should become a republic with a parliamentary-appointed President, a model which had previously been decided at a Constitutional Convention in February 1998. The second question, generally deemed to be far less important, asked whether we should alter the constitution to insert a preamble. Neither of the amendments passed, with the 'no' side scoring about 55% of the vote.
The divisions among the electorate
For years, opinion polls had clearly suggested that the majority of the electorate favoured republicanism, but still the referendum was comfortably defeated. The majority of analysis has advanced two main reasons for this:
Firstly, Australians have traditionally been cautious about proposed constitutional change: 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 held their beliefs largely on sentimental attachment to the monarchy, in part based on traditional associations with the United Kingdom and a personal identification with Elizabeth II and her family. Many were older or from rural rather than urban areas.
-
Pragmatic royalists who maintained that, whatever the argued weaknesses of the current system, it also had many strengths; following the motto of "If it isn't broken, 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 claimed that republican government would lead to instability or even dictatorship and result in an undesirable politicisation of the office of head of state.
-
Minimal change republicans who aimed to replace the monarch with an appointed Australian head of state, 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 aimed to replace the monarch with an elected head of state.
-
Radical republicans, who saw the minimal change option as purely cosmetic, and desired comprehensive revision to the current Westminister-based system. This was easily the smallest major group, but prominent in the debate.
- 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 referenda results and election outcomes in democracies worldwide.)
Alternative methods for selecting a president
Different groups within the republican cause expressed views as to which one was preferable. Some were committed to one option exclusively.
The two sides
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 politicans 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 'No' side
The organised "No" campaign was a mixture of monarchist groups such as Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy and the Australian Monarchists 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 harped on the alleged flaws of the model on offer, decrying those who supported the "yes" push as "elites", and skillfully 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". "No" campaigners called for further consultation, while remaining non-specific on what steps were needed to ensure this.
The questions and results
The question on the 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.
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.
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.
The result of the poll was clear: roughly 55% of the nation voted "no" and in only one territory, the ACT, 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 a constitutional monarchy; but wealthy city electorates mostly voted "yes", and blue-ribbon Labor seats in working-class suburbs voted "no".
Why the referendum was defeated
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 and Governor-General 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 proven 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 minimalist and progressive republicans, including almost all Labor and a majority of conservative politicians, and opposed by royalists of both kinds (except to the extent that most voted for it to be the model recommended by the constitutional convention), and the radical republicans (who reasoned that a simple cosmetic removal of the monarchy would make more far-reaching and substantial changes impossible).
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. Most monarchists were pleased that, in their view, common sense had prevailed. Australians for Constitutional Monarchy leader Kerry Jones, for example, called for citizens to accept it and go forward "as a united nation". Despite the hopes of radical republicans such as Phil Cleary, the referendum defeat was generally viewed as a setback for the republican cause and no further referenda on the subject were mooted by the Howard government.
See also
External link
Last updated: 05-22-2005 00:33:13
