Republicanism in Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Australia

This article is part of a series about the Politics and government of Australia

Federal Government Executive • Queen (Elizabeth II) • Governor-General (Michael Jeffery) • Prime Minister (Kevin Rudd) • Cabinet • Federal Executive Council Legislative • Parliament    • Senate    • House of Representatives    • Opposition Leader (Brendan Nelson) • Elections    • Federal electoral system    • Electoral divisions    • Election of 1901 · 1972 · 1974 ·      1975 · 1977 · 1980 · 1983 · 1984 ·      1987 · 1990 · 1993 · 1996 · 1998 ·      2001 · 2004 · 2007 · next Judicial • High Court • Lower Courts • Constitution

State and territory governments Executive • Governors and Administrators • Premiers and Chief Ministers Legislative • Parliaments and Assemblies • State electoral systems    • ACT · NSW · NT · Qld · SA · Tas ·      Vic · WA

Local government

Major political parties Greens · Labor · Country Liberal · Family First · Liberal · National

Foreign relations

Other countries · Atlas  Politics Portal view • talk • edit

Republicanism in Australia is a movement to change Australia's status as a constitutional monarchy to a republican form of government. Such sentiments have been expressed in Australia since pre-federation. Most modern arguments, however, focus on ending the Australian monarchy, along with the personal union relationship with the other Commonwealth realms, while maintaining a position in the Commonwealth of Nations.

Contents 1 Arguments for change and the characteristics of the debate. 1.1 Representing Australia 1.2 Multiculturalism and sectarianism 1.3 Social values and contemporary Australia 2 Proposals for change 3 Party political positions 3.1 Liberal-National Coalition 3.2 Australian Labor Party 3.3 Minor parties 4 History 4.1 Early history 4.2 Prior to Federation 4.3 Federation 4.4 Whitlam era 4.5 The Australia Act and other changes 4.6 Keating Government proposals 4.7 1998 Constitutional Convention 4.8 The 1999 Republican referendum 4.9 The 2004 Senate Inquiry 4.10 2006 and Queen's visit 4.11 Current status 5 Bibliography 6 See also 7 External links 8 References

[edit] Arguments for change and the characteristics of the debate.

[edit] Representing Australia

A central argument made by Australian republicans is that, as Australia is an independent country, it is inappropriate for the same person to be both the head of state of more than one country, though republicans focus on the monarch's separate role as British monarch.^[1] They argue that a person who is resident primarily in another country cannot adequately represent Australia, neither to itself, nor to the rest of the world.^{[2] [3]} As Australian Republican Movement member, Frank Cassidy put it in a speech on the issue: In short, we want a resident for President.^[4]

[edit] Multiculturalism and sectarianism

Republicans argue that Australia has changed demographically and culturally, from being "British to our bootstraps", as prime minister Robert Menzies once put it, to being increasingly multicultural.^[5][6] For Australians not of British ancestry, they argue, the idea of one person being both Monarch of Australia and Monarch of Britain is an anomaly. It is also claimed that Aborigines and Australians of Irish origin see the Australian Crown as a symbol of British imperialism. ^[7]

However, monarchists^[who?] argue that immigrants who left unstable republics and have arrived in Australia since 1945 welcomed the social and political stability that they found in Australia under a constitutional monarchy. Further, some Aborigines such as former Senator Neville Bonner, said a republican president would not "care one jot more for my people".^[8]

It has also been claimed monarchism and republicanism in Australia delineate historical and persistent sectarian tensions with, broadly speaking, Catholics more likely to be republicans and Protestants more likely to be monarchists^[9]. This developed out of a historical cleavage in 19th- and 20th-century Australia, in which republicans were predominantly of Irish Catholic background and loyalists were predominantly of British Protestant background^[10]. Whilst mass immigration since the Second World War has diluted this conflict ^[11] — according to 2001 census data, 886,914 Australians identified themselves specifically as Catholics of Irish ethnicity and a total of 1,919,727 stated Irish ancestry, not to mention a large number of the Australian ancestry category would be of old Irish colonial immigration.^[12] — the Catholic-Protestant divide has been cited as a dynamic in the republic debate, particularly in relation to the referendum campaign in 1999^[13][14]. Nonetheless, others have stated that Catholic-Protestant tensions — at least in the sense of an Irish-British conflict — are at least forty years dead,^[15] or simply "not there any more," having been replaced with a general conflict between secular and religious Australians.^[16]

It has also been claimed, however, that the Catholic-Protestant divide is intermingled with class issues.^[17] Certainly, republicanism in Australia has traditionally been supported most strongly by urban working class of Irish Catholic background^[18], whereas monarchism is a core value associated with urban and rural inhabitants of British Protestant heritage and the middle class^[19], to the extent that there were calls in 1999 for 300,000 exceptionally enfranchised^[20] British subjects who were not Australian citizens to be barred from voting on the grounds that they would vote as a loyalist bloc in a tight referendum.^[21]

[edit] Social values and contemporary Australia

It has been argued that several characteristics of the monarchy are in conflict with modern Australian values.^[22] The hereditary nature of the monarchy is said to conflict with egalitarianism and dislike of inherited privilege. The laws of succession are held by some to be sexist and the links between the monarchy and the Church of England inconsistent with Australia's secular character. ^[23] Under the Act of Settlement, passed by the British Parliament in 1701, the monarch is prohibited from either being Catholic, or from marrying a Catholic. This law is in conflict with Australian anti-discrimination laws which prohibit arrangements under which males have precedence over females, or under which becoming or marrying a Catholic invalidates any legal rights.

Monarchists claim^[who?] that the succession of an apolitical head of state provides a far more stable constitutional system compared to one involving appointing or electing a president who is likely to have a political agenda. Also, laws surrounding the line of succession, those that stipulate the eldest male is first in line, etc., can be altered without removing the Australian monarchy (although, in practice, such laws would require consent from the Parliaments of all the other Commonwealth Realms).

[edit] Proposals for change

A typical proposal for an Australian republic provides for the Queen and Governor General to be replaced by a president. There is much debate on the appointment or election process that would be used and what role such an office would have.

From its foundation until the 1999 referendum, the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) supported the bi-partisan appointment model, which would result in a President elected by the Parliament of Australia, with the powers currently held by the Queen and the Governor-General. It is argued that the requirement of a two-thirds majority in a vote of both houses of parliament would result in a bi-partisan appointment, preventing a party politician from becoming president. ^[24]

An alternative minimalist approach to change provides for the replacement of the Queen alone and retaining the Governor-General. The most notable model of this type is the McGarvie Model, while Copernican Models replace the Queen with a directly-elected figurehead.^[25] If this were to happen, it would be a first, as all other former Commonwealth Realms have created presidencies upon becoming republics.

Some republicans propose an executive presidency, a semi-presidential system or other constitutional reforms, such as citizen-initiated referenda. Alternatively it has been proposed to abolish the roles of the Governor-General and the monarchy and have their functions exercised by other constitutional officers such as the Speaker. ^[26]

Australians for Constitutional Monarchy and the Australian Monarchist League, who reject republicanism, argue that no model is better than the present system and argue that the risk and difficulty of changing the constitution is best demonstrated by inability of republicans to back a definitive design.

[edit] Party political positions

[edit] Liberal-National Coalition

The Liberal party, a conservative party, has both republicans and supporters of the status quo in its ranks but historically it has always upheld monarchism and links with Britain. Historically it was the party of British imperialism in Australia (see the comment by Liberal Prime Minister Menzies above).

The National party has few republicans. A conservative party with a rural base, its core constituency has always been strongly loyalist. As such, it remains against change as official policy.

Under former Prime Minister Howard, a monarchist, the government initiated a process to settle the republican debate, involving a constitutional convention and a referendum. Howard, who supports the status quo, says the matter was resolved by the failure of the referendum.

[edit] Australian Labor Party

Labor, which came to power near the end of 2007, has supported constitutional change to become a republic since 1991 and has incorporated republicanism into its platform. Labor currently proposes a series of plebiscites to restart the republican process. Labor spokesperson (now federal health minister) Nicola Roxon has previously said that reform will "always fail if we seek to inflict a certain option on the public without their involvement. This time round, the people must shape the debate". ^[27]

[edit] Minor parties

The Australian Democrats and Australian Greens all support a move towards a republic. The Family First party does not have an official stance on the creation of an Australian republic.

[edit] History

[edit] Early history

The founding of the British penal colony at Sydney Cove in 1788 was in the geopolitical context of the revolution in the American colonies in 1776 and a year before the French revolution of 1789. The Anti-Transportation League, a group founded in 1849 which was opposed to the transportation of convicts to Australia, argued that such a "Fenian" colony could separate from the British Empire^[28], due to its then largely Irish Catholic make up.

See also: Migratory history of Australia

[edit] Prior to Federation

John Dunmore Lang, a Presbyterian cleric and politician, published The Coming Event! Or, the United Provinces of Australia in 1850 and Freedom and Independence for the Golden Lands of Australia in 1852.

The revolt at the Eureka Stockade in 1854, was not fought to establish a republic. The writings of Raffaello Carboni, who was present at the Stockade, disputes the accusations "that have branded the miners of Ballaarat as disloyal to their QUEEN" (emphasis as in the original) ^[29]. However, the incident has been used to encourage republicanism in subsequent years. The Eureka Flag appears in connection with some republican groups ^[30]

A scheme proposed at the Imperial Conference of 1887 would have seen colonies taxed for the protection of the Royal Navy. The Australian delegates were highly critical of the proposal, echoing the rallying cry of the American revolution "No taxation without representation"^[31]

The Australian Republican Association (ARA) was founded in response, advocating the abolition of Governors, and their titles; the revision of the penal code; payment of members of Parliament; nationalisation of land; and an independent federal Australian republic outside of the Empire. The League held a number of public meetings. At the same time a movement emerged in favour of a "White Australia" policy; however British authorities in Whitehall were opposed to segregational laws. To circumvent Westminster, those in favour of the discriminatory policies backed the proposed secession from the Empire as a republic; a move advertised and advocated by the journal The Bulletin.^[32] One attendee of the ARA meetings was the Australian-born poet, Henry Lawson. Lawson wrote his first poem, entitled A Song of the Republic in The Republican journal.^[33]

“	Banish from under your bonny skies Those old-world errors and wrongs and lies	”
— Henry Lawson, A Song of the Republic

When the Republican League disrupted the Sydney centenary in 1888 Anniversary Day, one visiting British statesman said "Thank God there is an English fleet in harbour"^[34]

[edit] Federation

At the Australian Federation Convention which produced the first draft that was to become the Australian Constitution in Sydney in 1891, a former Premier of New South Wales George Dibbs described as the "inevitable destiny of the people of this great country" the establishment of "the Republic of Australia"^[35].

However, the fervour of republicanism tailed off in the 1890s as the labour movement became concerned with the Federation of Australia, and which became the focus following federation in 1901.

[edit] Whitlam era

The election of a Labor Government in 1972 marked the end of a period where Australians saw themselves principally as part of the Commonwealth of Nations (formerly the British Empire). Prime Minister Gough Whitlam instituted a number of changes, including removing reference to the United Kingdom in Queen Elizabeth's Australian title on 19 October 1973, when she signed her assent to the Royal Style and Titles Act, and creating a domestic system of conferring civil and military honours. It was also during this time that Australia's preferred economic status with Britain was dropped in favour of Britain joining the European Economic Community.

The Whitlam Government ended in 1975 with a dramatic constitutional crisis in which the Queen's representative, the Governor General, dismissed Whitlam and his entire ministry, appointing Opposition Leader Malcolm Fraser in his place. This particular incident raised questions about the value of maintaining a supposedly "symbolic" office that still possessed many key, and potentially dangerous, political powers. It is notable however, that the monarch herself was not consulted in the decision to use the reserve powers and pointedly refused to intervene, claiming that she lacked authority to do so under the Australian constitution.

[edit] The Australia Act and other changes

In 1986, the Australia Act was enacted with the United Kingdom to eliminate the remaining, mainly theoretical, ties between the legislature and judiciary of the two countries. It was later determined by the High Court in Sue v Hill that this legislation established Britain and Australia as independent nations sharing the same person as their relevant Sovereign.

At broadly the same time, references to the monarchy were being removed from various institutions. For example, in 1993, references to the Queen were removed from the Oath of Citizenship sworn by naturalised Australians, who would now swear allegiance to Australia and its people whose democratic beliefs I share and whose laws I will uphold and obey. The state of Queensland deleted all references to the monarchy from its legislation, with new laws being enacted by its Parliament, not the Queen, and 'binding on the State of Queensland', not the Crown. Barristers in New South Wales were no longer appointed 'Queen's Counsel' (QC), but 'Senior Counsel' (SC), as in republics like Ireland and South Africa. Institutions in Australia could no longer apply to have 'Royal' in their title, and British citizens residing in Australia could no longer enroll to vote in state or federal elections.

Nevertheless, all Australian Senators and Members of the House of Representatives swear to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty before taking their seats in Parliament. Should a change to the allegiance of Senators and members of parliament be desired, it could only be approved by a referendum as the oaths are part of the Constitution.

Many monarchists condemned these changes as moves to a "republic by stealth".

[edit] Keating Government proposals

The Australian Labor Party first made republicanism its official policy in 1991, with then Prime Minister Bob Hawke describing a republic as inevitable. His successor Paul Keating actively pursued the republican agenda and established the Republic Advisory Committee to produce an options paper on issues relating to the possible transition to a republic to take effect on the centenary of federation: January 1, 2001. The Committee produced its report in 1993, and argued that "a republic is achievable without threatening Australia’s cherished democratic institutions."

In response to the report, the Prime Minister proposed a referendum on the establishment of a republic, replacing the Governor-General with a President, and removing references to the Queen. The President was to be nominated by the Prime Minister and appointed by a two-thirds majority in a joint sitting of the Senate and House of Representatives.

[edit] 1998 Constitutional Convention

Main Article: Constitutional Convention (Australia)

With change in government in 1996, Prime Minister John Howard proceeded with an alternative policy of holding a constitutional convention. This was held over two weeks in February 1998 at Old Parliament House. Half of the 152 delegates were elected and half were appointed by Federal and state governments. A number of convention delegates appointed by then Prime Minister, John Howard, were accused of having fixed views on retaining the monarchy. For example, in the ACT, Sir David Smith KCVO and Heidi Zwar where appointed to represent the people of Canberra. Both these delegates where on the public record of holding unswerving support for the monarchy despite being appointed to articulate the views of one of Australia's most pro-republican territories. The presence of a number of such appointed delegates acted to elevate voting opposition to a republican consensus. Prime Minister Howard was able to point to their intransigent opposition as evidence of broad community concern over a move toward a republican constitution. Convention delegates were asked whether or not Australia should become a republic and which model for a republic is preferred. At the opening of the Convention, John Howard stated that if the Convention could not decide on a model to be put to a referendum, then plebiscites would be held on the model preferred by the Australian public^[36].

At the Convention, a republic gained majority support (89 votes to 52 with 11 abstentions), but the question of what model for a republic should be put to the people at a referendum produced deep divisions among republicans. Four republican models were debated: two involving direct election of the head of state; one involving appointment on the advice of the Prime Minister (the McGarvie Model); and one involving appointment by a two-thirds majority of Parliament (the bi-partisan appointment model).

The bi-partisan appointment model was eventually successful at the Convention, even though it only obtained a majority because of 22 abstentions in the final vote (57 against delegates voted against the model and 73 voted for, three votes short of an actual majority of delegates)^[37] It was put to referendum the following year. The Convention also made recommendations about a preamble to the Constitution, and a proposed preamble was also put to referendum.

According to critics, the two-week timeline and quasi-democratic composition of the convention is evidence of an attempt by John Howard to frustrate the republican cause. Although he admits to being an "unashamed royalist", the claim is one he adamantly rejects.

[edit] The 1999 Republican referendum

Main article: 1999 Australian republic referendum

The 1999 Australian republic referendum was a two question referendum held in 1999. The first question asked whether Australia should become a republic with a President appointed by Parliament, a model that 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, with 55% of all electors voting 'no' to the republican model presented.

Under the referendum proposal, the Governor General and Queen would be replaced by one office, the President of the Commonwealth of Australia. The President could be appointed by the Australian Parliament to a fixed term. The existing powers of the Governor General were to be transferred to the President by reference, meaning that they would continue to be unwritten.

Supporters of the republican model claimed that, contrary to monarchist views, the stability of Australia's liberal democracy would not be imperilled and would in fact be enhanced by such a change, because the Prime Minister, whilst retaining the ability to sack the (effective) head of State, could not alone choose their replacement and would thus have no incentive to do so. Additionally, wider involvement in the choice would ensure that the backgrounds of the appointees would be more thoroughly scrutinised.

The referendum was held on 6 November 1999, after a national advertising campaign and the distribution of 12.9 million Yes/No case pamphlets. The question on a republic was defeated. It was not carried in any state and attracted 45 per cent of the total national vote. The preamble referendum question was also defeated, with a Yes vote of only 39 per cent.

Many opinions were put forward for the defeat, some relating to perceived difficulties with the model, others relating to the lack of public engagement. A substantial number of republic supporters voted against the referendum because they disliked the model provided, preferring a directly-elected president.^[38] Referenda are notoriously difficult to pass in Australia.

[edit] The 2004 Senate Inquiry

On 26 June 2003, the Senate referred an Inquiry into an Australian Republic to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee. During 2004, the committee reviewed 730 submissions and conducted hearings in all state capitals. The Committee tabled its report called Road to a Republic on 31 August 2004.

The report examined the contest between minimalist and direct-election models and gave attention to hybrid models such as the Electoral College Model, the Constitutional Council Model and models having both an elected President and a Governor-General.

The bi-partisan recommendations of committee supported educational initiatives and holding a series of plebiscites to allow the public to choose which model they preferred, prior to a final draft and referendum, along the lines of plebiscites proposed by John Howard at the 1998 Constitutional Convention.

[edit] 2006 and Queen's visit

Issues related to republicanism were raised by the March 2006 visit to Australia by Queen Elizabeth II. Then Prime Minister John Howard was questioned at the time by British journalists about the future of the monarchy in Australia,^[39][40] and there was debate about playing God save the Queen during the opening of the Commonwealth Games^{[41] [42]}. A poll taken later that year for The West Australian by Paterson Market Research found that support for a republic amongst Australians 18 to 30 years of age was at 38%^[43]. By 2007 comments in the media questioned the public interest in the subject; writing in The Australian Financial Review, Lenore Taylor stated that republicanism in Australia was "on life support."^[44]

[edit] Current status

Before becoming Prime Minister in 2007, Kevin Rudd opined that becoming a republic was an important part of the nation's future, but also that it would not be a priority and doubted there would be any action on the matter during his first term in government.^{[45] [46]} In the meantime, both the Australian Republican Movement and opponent monarchist groups, such as Australians for Constitutional Monarchy remain active. In January, 2007, The Australian published the results of polling with 45% of Australians favour or partly favour Australia becoming a republic, with 36% opposed and 19% uncommitted.^[47]

Some republicans argue that Australians will not vote for a republic while Queen Elizabeth II reigns.^[48] Some have countered the idea of holding plebiscites. Monarchist David Flint described this process as "inviting a vote of no confidence in one of the most successful constitutions in the world" ^[49]. Minimalist republican Greg Craven states "a multi-option plebiscite inevitably will produce a direct election model, precisely for the reason that such a process favours models with shallow surface appeal and multiple flaws. Equally inevitably, such a model would be doomed at referendum." ^[50]

[edit] Bibliography

• An Australian republic: The options: the report of the Republic Advisory Committee, Parliamentary paper / Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (1993)
• Booker, M., A Republic of Australia: What Would it Mean, Left Book Club Co-operative Ltd, Sydney (1992)
• Costella, John P., A Republic For All Australians (2004) online version
• Flint,David, The Cane Toad Republic Wakefield Press (1999)
• Goot, Murray, "Contingent Inevitability: Reflections on the Prognosis for Republicanism" (1994) in George Winterton (ed), We, the People: Australian Republican Government (1994), pp 63–96
• Hirst, J., A Republican Manifesto, Oxford University Press (1994)
• Keating, P. J., An Australian Republic: The Way Forward, Australian Government Publishing Service (1995)
• McGarvie, Richard E., Democracy: Choosing Australia's Republic (1999)
• McKenna, Mark, The Captive Republic: A History of Republicanism in Australia 1788–1996 (1998)
• McKenna, Mark, The Traditions of Australian Republicanism (1996) online version
• Stephenson, M. and Turner, C. (eds.), Australia Republic or Monarchy? Legal and Constitutional Issues, University of Queensland Press (1994)
• Warden, J., "The Fettered Republic: The Anglo American Commonwealth and the Traditions of Australian Political Thought," Australian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 28, 1993. pp. 84–85.
• Wark, McKenzie, The Virtual Republic: Australia's Culture Wars of the 1990s (1998)
• Winterton, George (ed), We, the People: Australian Republican Government, Allen & Unwin (1994),
• Woldring, Klaas, Australia: Republic or US Colony? (2006)

[edit] See also

• Australian Republican Movement
• Australian constitutional history
• Australian constitutional law
• Constitution of Australia
• Process model (Australia)
• Australian flag debate

[edit] External links

• Senate Inquiry into an Australian Republic
• Souters' Guide to Australian Republican Issues
• The Australian Republican Movement homepage
• The Republican Party of Australia homepage
• The Australian Monarchist League (Opposed to republicanism)
• Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (Opposed to republicanism)
• Res Publica : Australia international anti-monarchy Web directory

[edit] References

v • d • e Republicanism in Commonwealth Realms Australia · Canada · New Zealand · United Kingdom

v • d • e Politics of Australia Commonwealth Parliament · House of Representatives · Senate · High Court · Lower courts · Queen · Governor-General · Prime Minister · Cabinet · Executive Council · Ministry Federal elections pre-1969 · 1969 · 1972 · 1974 · 1975 · 1977 · 1980 · 1983 · 1984 · 1987 · 1990 · 1993 · 1996 · 1998 · 2001 · 2004 · 2007 · next State/territory elections ACT (next election) · NSW (2007 election) · NT (2005 election) · QLD (2006 election) · SA (next election) · TAS (2006 election) · VIC (2006 election) · WA (2005 election) Political parties Australian Democrats · Australian Greens · Australian Labor Party · Family First Party · Liberal Party of Australia · National Party of Australia · Micro-parties