From Constitutional Convention to Republic …...From Constitutional Convention to Republic...

Department of the

Parliamentary Library •~J..>t~)~.J&~l<~t~& INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICES

Research PaperNo. 25 1998-99

From Constitutional Convention to RepublicReferendum: A Guide to the Processes, theIssues and the Participants

ISSN 1328-7478

© Copyright Commonwealth ofAustralia 1999

Except to the exteot of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may bereproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems,without the prior written consent of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Senators andMembers ofthe Australian Parliament in the course oftheir official duties.

This paper has been prepared for general distribntion to Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament.While great care is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced,the paper is written usinginformation publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are those of the author andshould not be attributed to the Information and Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legalpolicy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for relatedparliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper isnot an official parliamentary or Australian govermnent document. IRS staff are available to discuss thepaper's contents with Senators and Members and their staffbut not with members of the public.

Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 1999

,

,.

,

INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICES

,Research PaperNo. 25 1998-99

From Constitutional Convention to Republic Referendum:A Guide to the Processes, the Issues and the Participants

Professor John WarhurstConsultant, Politics and Public Administration Group29 June 1999

Acknowledgments

This is to acknowledge the considerable help that I was given in producing this paper. I would particularlylike to thank all my colleagues in the Politics and Public Administration Group and the other Informationand Research Services colleagues who attended the workshop on 28 April. And lowe special thanks toDiane Hynes without whose administrative assistance this production would never have seen the light ofday.

Inquiries

Further copies of this publication may be purchased from the:

Publications Distribution OfficerTelephone: (02) 6277 2720

Information and Research Services publications are available on the PariInfo database.On the Internet the Department of the Parliamentary Library can be found at: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/

A list of IRS publications may be obtained from the:

IRS Publications OfficeTelephone: (02) 6277 2760

Contents

Major Issues , .i

Introduction 1

Processes 1

Issues 2

Participants 4

Debating the Republic ,.. 5

Chronology 5

Purpose of the Constitutional Convention 8

Outcomes of the Constitutional Convention 9

The Bipartisan Appointment of the President ModeL 11

The Referendum Process 12

Public Opinion 13

Major Participants in The Debate 15

Issues for Resolution during 1999 16

The Timing ofthe Referendum 16

The Referendum Questions 16

The Public Education Programme 17

The YES and NO Media Campaigns 18

The Presidential Nominations Committee 18

Implications for the States 18

Conclusion 18

, Endnotes 19

Appendix 1: Delegates to the 1998 Constitutional Convention 23

Appendix 2: Summary of Constitutional Referendums 29

Appendix 3: Opinion Polls on an Australian Republic 3 I

Appendix 4: Poll Data 33

Appendix 5: Governments and Political Parties 35

Appendix 6: YES Community Organisations 41

Appendix 7: NO Community Organisations 45

Appendix 8: The YES and NO Campaign Organisations 49

Appendix 9: Educational Organisations 51

Appendix 10: Some Additional Public Figures 53

From Constitutional Convention to Republic Referendum

Major Issues

This paper provides the background necessary for an understanding of the context of therepublic referendum to be held on 6 November 1999. Its purpose is not to criticallyexamine the contending arguments being put by monarchists and republicans, as this hasbeen done already by the participants and others, but rather to provide a guide to theprocesses, issues and participants. In particular, the paper sketches:

• the contemporary evolution ofthe monarchy-republic debate

• the pattern ofpublic opinion

• the emergence ofthe key community organisations

• the Constitutional Convention in February 1998

• the referendum process

• the positions adopted by the political parties

• the positions adopted by Commonwealth and state government leaders

• the way in which political institutions, such as the executive and the parliament, areprocessing the issue, and

• the likely dynamics and shape of events over the final six months before the referendum.

The aim of the paper is to enable those interested in the referendum to follow the debate asit unfolds by identifYing the roles and positions of the key actors. Contact addresses of themajor players and suggestions for further reading are included for this purpose. Crossreferences are given to a wide range of complementary papers and notes produced byInformation and Research Services.


Introduction

This paper aims to be a guide to the participants, issues and processes in the debate leadingup to the constitutional referendum to decide whether Australia will become a republic.While there is some discussion of the debate about the preamble this paper is not meant tobe a guide to that issue.

It concentrates particularly on the years 1998-1999, especially from the February 1998Constitutional Convention (CC) to April 1999, in the lead-up to the November 1999referendum. But to put these years in their proper context and to explain the emergence ofthe key organisations and individual personalities, the account of the whole decade mustbe told.

The referendum has focused the debate. It will be conducted according to well-wornconstitutional provisions, which are spelled out in the Constitution and elaborated inlegislation for the conduct of referenda. But it also has its own unusual characteristics.These include the pre-eminent role played by community organisations in a formally nonpartisan referendum. Furthermore, the referendum is being put by a prime minister who ispersonally opposed to the change, but who has declared that he will play no active part inthe campaign.

Processes

Australian debate about republicanism became serious, if the measure is some prospect ofconstitutional change, in the 1990s. The decade has seen a transformation of the debatethough the emergence of organised groups in the community, changing attitudes within thepolitical parties and a generalised concern with constitutional reform as the centenary offederation approaches on I January 2001.

The key events have been those that have brought closer the likelihood of a govemmentputting before the parliament a bill to have the issue considered by the Australian people ata constitutional referendum held under section 128 of the constitution. They haveincluded:

• the appointment of the Republic Advisory Committee by the Keating Labor Governmentin May 1993

1


• the address by the Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to the Parliament on 7 June 1995 inwhich he set a timetable of a republic by 2001

• the campaign promise by the victorious Coalition parties at the March 1996 federalelections to call a people's convention to address the issue

• the holding of the Constitutional Convention at Old Parliament House in Canberra inFebruary 1998

• the recommendations by the Constitutional Convention that a republican model be put tothe people at a referendum towards the end of 1999, and

• the mechanisms and processes being put in place during 1999 by the HowardGovernment.

Issues

The general debate about the competing virtues ofmonarchy and republic has been shapedby the events of the 1990s. The focus has been the adoption of the so-called 'minimalist'model by Paul Keating's Labor government and the Australian Republican Movement(ARM) and its reincarnation, with amendments, as the Bipartisan ParliamentaryAppointment of the President model as the preferred model of the ConstitutionalConvention.

By the time of the elections for the Constitutional Convention the organised opponents ofchange, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM), were campaigning behind theslogan 'No Republic'. The elements of their campaign are:

• the existing constitution has served Australia well and is not 'broke'

• no substantial arguments have been put forward for radical constitutional change

• there are no discernible benefits

• the move to a republic might destabilise the political system

• the preferred republican model has particular weaknesses, such as the unrestricted abilityof the Prime Minister to dismiss the President, and

• there is no hurry for change even if the republic is inevitable in the long term.

The elections for the Constitutional Convention brought into the open the different strandsin a republican movement dominated until that stage by the 'minimalist' AustralianRepublican Movement. These other republicans almost always wanted more expansive

2


change. They held caucus meetings during the convention to organise opposition to apresident elected by Parliament. After the convention a majority of these delegates, led byTed Mack, Phil Cleary and Clem Jones formed the Real Republicans. Other direct electionrepublicans, including Reverend Tim Costello, chose to join the YES campaign.

These 'direct election' or 'popular election' republicans argue that the minimalist model istoo narrowly conceived. They argue that direct election ofthe president is:

• an expression of 'real' republicanism, meaning citizen sovereignty

• a democratic step because public opinion polls suggest that it is what the majority ofAustralians want, and

• a step towards opening up and reshaping the whole Australian political system.

They argue, furthermore, that, by contrast, parliamentary election of the president is:

• a very conservative and unacceptably limited change, and

• an outcome favoured by the existing political party establishment because it leaves controlof the presidency in their hands.

The mainstream proponents of the YES case advocate the middle position. They aredriven by the central nationalist argument that:

• the present constitutional monarchy, whereby the British monarch is also the AustralianHead of State, is unacceptable because the Australian Head of State ought be anAustralian citizen.

They argue, furthermore, that:

• the hereditary nature of the monarchy is undemocratic, not allowing appointment by meritand excluding in this case women and those who are not Anglicans, and

• the minimalist change will effectively not change anything other than replacing theGovemor-General with the President.

This emphasis on the conservative nature of the proposed change appeals particularly to anorganisation that emerged early in 1999, Conservatives for an Australian Head of State. Itis especially critical of the proposals for direct election of the president, which they see aspotentially destabilising. They advocate that conservative Australians should support theYES case not only on its merits but also because, should it be defeated, the alternative islikely be more radical change.

3


Participants

There are three categories ofparticipants actively involved in the republic debate:

• governments and political parties

• cornmunity organisations and individuals advocating YES or NO, and

• politically neutral organisations engaged in political education and analysis.

The Australian Labor Party is formally committed to a republic as is the AustralianDemocrats. The Liberal Party and the National Party are each committed to the status quo.The Prime Minister has made it clear that party discipline will not apply to this issuewithin the Liberal Party and that, while he remains a monarchist, republicans within theparty are free to vote and campaign according to their conscience. The National Party hasremained solidly monarchist and none of its current parliamentarians have publiclysupported a republic.

The main republican community organisation is the non-partisan ARM. There are alsonascent organisations called the YES Coalition in most states and territories composed ofARM members and other prominent citizens, including some direct election republicansadvocating a YES vote. Standing to one side is another organisation, Conservatives for anAustralian Read of State (CARS).

The main monarchist organisation is ACM. There are also other community organisations,such as the Australian Monarchist League (AML). At the elections for the ConstitutionalConvention there were some successful monarchist electoral organisations, such asSafeguard the People and Constitutional Monarchists. By 1999 ACM, like its oppositenumber ARM in the case of republicans, appears to have become the spokesperson formonarchists.

The direct election republicans opposed to the preferred republican model have onlyrecently begun to organise. Their main organisation is Real Republicans.

Since 1991 the Constitutional Centenary Foundation, funded by the Commonwealth andstate governments, has pursued public education on constitutional reform matters.

The YES and NO advocates in the political parties and the community organisations havebeen brought together in the official committees for the advertising for the referendum forthe republic. The YES committee has ARM, CARS, Labor, Liberal and Democratrepresentatives, while the NO committee has ACM, National and Liberal representativesas well as two direct election republicans. So the referendum campaign will be a threesided campaign about a two-sided question.

4


Debating the Republic

Australians have long discussed the idea of replacing the constitutional monarchy with arepublican constitution, even during the 19th century before federation in 1901. Thisdiscussion has continued during the 20th century. But republicans have been in a minorityand the issue has always been peripheral to the main political debate.!

From the 1960s onwards, public debate quickened and well-known public identities, suchas Geoffrey Dutton, Donald Home and Max Harris, declared themselves to berepublicans.2 But none of the major political parties were committed to the republic andrepublicans remained in the clear minority according to public opinion polls. The 1975constitutional crisis drew attention to Australia's constitutional arrangements and over theyears that followed the Australian Labor Party edged towards declaring itself for therepublic. This it eventually did in 1982.3 It was in this context that there was considerablecriticism of the appointment of the former Labor leader, Bill Hayden as Governor-Generalin 1989. He was presumed to be a republican.

The 1990s is the decade in which the republican debate has flourished, generated bycommunity action and reaction.4 In April 1991 a Constitutional Centenary Conference washeld in Sydney, convened by leading legal figures. From this meeting the ConstitutionalCentenary Foundation was created. On 7 July 1991 the Australian Republican Movement,the first major republican organisation, was launched by author, Tom Keneally. In tumthis led to similar organisational efforts to defend the status quo and, less than a year later,on 4 June 1992, ACM held their first public meeting.

Chronology

3-5 April 19917 July 19914 June 1992

28 April 19935 October 19937 June 19958 June 199526 March 19973 November-9 December 199729-30 January 19982-13 February 199819 February19999 March 1999

Constitutional Centenary Conference, SydneyAustralian Republican Movement launched, SydneyAustralians for Constitutional Monarchy first public meeting,SydneyRepublic Advisory Committee establishedRepublic Advisory Committee reportsPaul Keating commits his government to a republic by 2001John Howard proposes a People's ConventionConstitution Convention (Election) Bill second readingVoting for Elected Delegates to Constitutional ConventionWomen's Constitutional Convention, CanberraConstitutional Convention meets in CanberraYES and NO campaign tearns announcedRelease of Exposure Drafts of the Constitutional Alteration(Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 and of the PresidentialNominations Committee Bill 1999

5


Some state premiers had also entered the debate on both sides and became importantfigures in the debate. Of greatest political significance was the emergence of a prorepublic Liberal State premier, Nick Greiner, in NSW. Greiner served to makerepublicanism a bipartisan issue.

Paul Keating replaced Bob Hawke as Labor Prime Minister in December 1991 andimmediately began to advance issues of national identity. On 24 February 1993, in hispolicy speech just before the March 1993 federal elections, Keating announced hisintention to form 'a committee of eminent Australians to develop a discussion paper thatwould consider the options for an Australian republic'.5 This committee, the RepublicAdvisory Committee (RAC) was established on 28 April 1993. The chair was MalcolmTurnbull of the ARM. The other members included Greiner; Mary Kostakidis, SBS TVpresenter and CCF member; Lois O'Donoghue, chair of the Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Commission; Susan Ryan, former Labor Senator and Minister for Education;George Winterton, Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales; Dr GlynDavis of the School of Politics and Public Policy at Griffith University, who was thenominee of the Queensland Premier; and Namoi Dougall, a solicitor, who was thenominee of the NSW Premier (each State premier had been asked to put forward namesfor consideration).6

The RAC reported on 5 October 1993 and concluded that a republic was achievable. Itwas 'both legally and practically possible to amend the Constitution to achieve a republicwithout making changes which will in any way detract from the fundamentalconstitutional principles on which our system of government is based,. 7 The Keatinggovernment cornmitted itself to this position and, on 7 June 1995, Keating gave a televisedaddress to parliament in which he reiterated this view and set a timetable of a republic by2001.8 By now public opinion surveys (see below) suggested that a majority of Australiansjoined the ALP in supporting in principle the move to a republic, as did the AustralianDemocrats. So it had thus become an issue of some urgency for the Coalition parties toaddress.

The early 1990s saw a quickening of the debate and a number of books were published, byacademics and activists, examining the constitutional and political issues. 9 Most of theseauthors wrote in favour of the move to a republic.

Earlier, in November 1994, the then Leader of the Opposition, Alexander Downer, hadsuggested the idea of a people's convention to discuss the issue, a procedure advocated bythe Constitutional Centenary Foundation. This first step later enabled the subsequentOpposition Leader, John Howard, to put forward a more detailed proposal along theselines in response to Paul Keating's June 1995 initiative.

When the Coalition parties won the March 1996 federal elections this proposal was part ofits campaign promises but the republic did not playa major part in its campaign. At thetime the Labor Government countered with a proposal for an indicative plebiscite (a non-

6


binding vote) that would test sUPPo0rt for a republic in principle before proceeding to areferendum on a particular model. 0

The Howard government proceeded to implement its proposal and from that time onwardsthe debate narrowed. The Constitutional Convention (Election) Bill 1997 received itssecond reading on 26 March 1997. The bill was held up in the Senate for some timebecause it proposed that the 76 elected delegates would be elected by voluntary postalballot rather than by in-person compulsory voting. Eventually the bill passed through theSenate and planning for the election proceeded. II

On 12 September the date of the election was announced. Voting papers were mailed outin the period 3-14 November and the polling closed on 9 December. The results werenotified on 24 December.

Elections were held in each state and territory for a total of 76 delegates. The distributionof seats was: New South Wales (20); Victoria (16); Queensland (13); Western Australia(9); South Australia (8); Tasmania (6); Australian Capital Territory (2); and NorthernTerritory (2). A Senate-style voting method was used. The turnout was 46.93 per cent ofeligible voters. Under the circumstances this was quite a respectable turnout. But it didleave open the question of whether this was a representative sample and just what theviews of the remaining 53 per cent would be at any subsequent referendum.

There were 609 candidates including 80 groups and 176 non-aligned individuals. 12 Thetwo largest groups, ARM and ACM, polled the lion's share of the votes and won the bulkof the elected positions. ARM polled 30.34 per cent and ACM polled 22.51 per centYRepublican candidates led the count in NSW, Victoria, WA, ACT and NT, whilemonarchists won in Queensland, SA and Tasmania.14 The successful candidates are listedin Appendix 1.

The Prime Minister appointed the other 76 delegates: 40 parliamentary and 36 nonparliamentary.ls The parliamentary delegates were divided between Commonwealth andstate representatives. The Commonwealth representatives included both all the partyleaders and some backbenchers. The state representatives included the State premiers andopposition leaders and the chief ministers of the ACT and the Northern Territory. Thenon-parliamentary delegates included seven youth delegates, some indigenous leaderssuch as Lowitja O'Donoghue and Gatjil Djerkurra (past and present chairs of theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission), prominent women such as ProfessorJudith Sloan, Julie Bishop (now MHR), Dame Leonie Kramer, Helen Lynch, and DameRoma Mitchell; church leaders such as Anglican Archbishop Peter Hollingworth andCatholic Archbishop George Pell; and other prominent Australian men, includingProfessor Geoffrey Blainey, Major-General William 'Digger' James, Bill Hayden,Professor Greg Craven, Sir Arvi Parbo, Peter Sams and Lloyd Waddy. The Prime Ministeralso appointed two senior parliamentarians: Ian Sinclair (National Party) and Barry Jones(ALP) as Chair and Deputy Chair of the Convention. The full list of appointed delegates isalso given in Appendix 1.

7


The Constitutional Convention met at Old Parliament House in Canberra for ten workingdays, 2-13 February 1998. The convention was televised and it attracted considerable andfavourable attention from both the media and the public who were able to watch theproceedings from the visitors' galleries. 16

Just before the Constitutional Convention a Women's Constitutional Convention (WCe)was held in Canberra on 29-30 January 1998. The WCC was convened by representativesof Australian Women Lawyers, Constitutional Centenary Foundation, National Women'sJustice Coalition, Women's Electoral Lobby, Women into Politics and YWCA Australia.WCC aimed to 'ensure that the debate concerning the potential shift to a republic is notone-sided but includes the interests ofwomen'.17

It was a successful event, attended by 300 delegates, including a number who would beattending the Constitutional Convention itself. While it added to the momentum for arepublic it did not support a particular modeL However a majority of delegates indicatedtheir wish to go beyond a minimalist republic. It was reported that a majority 'endorsed arepublic that recognised and accepted indigenous Australians, enshrined gender equity inthe political process, promoted social cohesion, political stability and a democratic culture,and included a bill of rights'. IS

Purpose of the Constitutional Convention

The convention had a narrowly defmed purpose. It was asked by the Prime Minister toconsider three questions:

• first, whether or not Australia should become a republic

• secondly which republic model should be put to the voters to consider against the currentsystem ofgovernment, and

• thirdly, in what time frame and under what circumstances might any change beconsidered.

In his opening address to the Convention, John Howard promised delegates that:

if clear support for a particular republican model emerged from the Convention, mygovernment would, if returned at the next election, put that model to the Australianpeople in a referendum before the end of 1999.19

Then, if the referendum was successful, Howard promised the convention that the republicwould be put in place for I January 2001 which would be the Centenary of Federation andthe birth of the new millennium.

8


Outcomes of the Constitutional Convention

Ofthe Prime Minister's three questions:

• the Constitutional Convention supported, in principle, the idea that Australia shouldbecome a republic. This resolution was carried by 89 votes to 52 with 11 abstentions

• the Convention supported the Bipartisan Appointment of the President Model by 73 votesin favour to 57 against with 22 abstentions. While this was less than an absolute majorityit was declared carried by the chair and a motion of dissent in the chair's ruling wasoverwhelmingly defeated, and

• the Convention voted to recommend to the Prime Minister and Parliament that this modelbe put to a referendum by 133 votes to 17 with two abstentions. It recommended that thereferendum be held in 1999 and that if successful the republic should come into effect by 1January 2001.

The Convention also discussed the implications for the states.20 It resolved

That the Commonwealth Govemment and parliament extend an invitation to StateGovernments and Parliaments to consider:

• the implications for their respective Constitutions ofany proposal that Australia become arepublic; and

• the consequences to the Federation ifone or more States should decline to accept republicanstatus.

In any case it resolved that State autonomy not be infringed.

In choosing the Bipartisan Appointment of the President Model the Convention preferredit to three other models. The first, moved by the WA Opposition Leader Dr GeoffreyGallop, was the Direct Election Model, involving:

the election of the head of state by the Australian people following a two-stage processfor identifying candidates.2I

••• 'not less than three candidates would be selected from thenominees by a special majority of a joint sitting of the House of Representatives and theSenate'.

The second, moved by the former Governor-General Bill Hayden, was another directelection model. It involved 'nomination of candidates for the election by way of petitionendorsed by at least one percent of voters'.22

The third, moved by the former Victorian Governor, Richard McGarvie and hence knownas the McGarvie Model, involved the least change from the present system. Under thismodel the head of state would be appointed by a new, three person Constitutional Council

9


whose only role would be to ratify the Prime Minister's selection. Any citizen could put aname forward to the Prime Minister.

The choice of model was carried out by exhaustive ballot. The Hayden Model receivedonly four votes and was eliminated in the first round. Then the Direct Election Model wasnarrowly eliminated in the second round after receiving 30 votes.

Finally, the Bipartisan Appointment Model prevailed in the final round with 73 votes to 32votes for the McGarvie Model, 43 for no model and three abstentions.

The second major issue considered was whether the Constitution should include a newpreamble, while allowing for the existing preamble to remain intact.

The Convention recommended that there should be a new preamble including thefollowing elements:

• introductory language in the form 'We the people ofAustralia'

• reference to 'Almighty God'

• references to the origins of the Constitution and acknowledgment that the Commonwealthhas evolved into an independent, democratic and sovereign nation under the Crown

• recognition of our federal system of representative democracy and responsiblegovernment

• affirmation of the rule oflaw

• acknowledgment of the original occupancy and custodianship of Australia by Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander peoples

• recognition ofAustralia's cultural diversity

• affirmation ofrespect for our unique land and the environment

• reference to the people of Australia having agreed to reconstitute our system ofgovernment as a republic, and

• concluding language to the effect that '[we the people of Australia] asserting oursovereignty, commit ourselves to this constitution'.

It also agreed that some other matters might be considered for inclusion in theConstitution. These included the following:

• affirmation of the equality of all people before the law

10


• recognition of gender equality, and

• recognition that Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders have continuing rights byvirtue of their status as Australia's indigenous peoples.

It was resolved that the preamble should not be used to interpret the other provisions of theConstitution and that this stipulation should be written into chapter three of theConstitution which deals with the judicatureP

Finally, the Convention recommended a continuing process of constitutional review. Itresolved:

that, if a republican system of govemment should be introduced by referendum, at a datebeing not less than three years or more than five years thereafter the CommonwealthGovemment should convene a further Constitutional Convention?4

The first item on the agenda of such a convention, for which two-thirds of the delegateswould be directly elected by the people, would be to review the operation of the newsystem of government. It would also be able to address many other matter related to thenew arrangements, including ways to better involve people in the political process.

The Bipartisan Appointment of the President Model

The Convention recommended that the Prime Minister should present to a Joint Sitting ofthe Parliament a 'single nomination for the office of President, seconded by the Leader ofthe Opposition,.25 The nomination would need the approval/support of a two-thirdsmajority.

In presenting a single name the Prime Minister would take into account the report of acommittee established by Parliament to consider nominations.

This committee should be:

of a workable size, its composition should have a balance between parliamentary(including representatives of all parties with party status in the CommonwealthParliament) and community membership and take into account so far as practicableconsiderations offederalism, gender, age and cultural diversity?6

Nominations should be invited from as wide a range of individuals and organisations aspossible so as 'to ensure that the Australian people are consulted as thoroughly aspossible,.27 Consultation shall involve the whole community, including 'State and TerritoryParliaments; local government; community organisations, and individual members of thepublic,.28

11


The Committee should compile a short-list of candidates for consideration by the PrimeMinister, being mindful in doing so of 'community diversity'. No nomination should bemade public without the consent of the nominee. The qualification for office is that theperson be an Australian citizen qualified to be a member of the House of Representativesunder s 44 of the Constitution.

The term of office is five years. The President can be dismissed 'at any time by a notice inwriting signed by the Prime Minister,.29 This action would have to be approved within 30days by the House of Representatives. If it was not approved this would constitute a voteofno confidence in the Prime Minister.

The powers of the President would be 'the same as those currently exercised by theGovemor-General,.30 To achieve this the Convention recommended that Parliament:

• spell out as far as practicable the powers that are exercised on the advice of ministers(known as non-reserve powers), and

• issue a statement that 'the reserve powers and the conventions relating to their exercisecontinue to exist'.

The Referendum Process31

In his introduction to the report of the Constitutional Convention the Chairman, the RtHon. Ian Sinclair, noted that the outcomes of the convention, including therecommendation that the Republic question be put to the people at a referendum, 'shouldbe assessed against the history of rejection of constitutional change,.32 He further notedthat 'only eight of the 42 propositions submitted by referendum have been approved'. Thedetails of all the constitutional referendums held so far are to be found in Appendix 2.

This means that it is difficult to achieve constitutional change by constitutionalreferendums. Various reasons are advanced for these unpromising results ranging from theconservatism of the Australian people in resisting positive changes to the perspicacity ofthe Australian people in resisting 'grabs for power' by the central goverrnnent. However itshould be noted that the Australian record might not be too conservative at all when it iscompared with attempts to change constitutional arrangements in other comparablecountries, such as Canada.33 Constitutional change is rarely easy to achieve because in allcountries it involves the most major changes possible and is, therefore, conductedaccording to stringent rules.34

There is, however, general agreement that any significant party political opposition to areferendum proposal will spell its defeat. This was the case on the occasion of the mostrecent referendums, in 1988, when four proposals were so overwhelmingly defeated (noproposal achieved even 40 per cent support) that the future of constitutional change by

12


referendum appeared to be bleak.35 Consequently, one strategy has been to attempt to'depoliticise constitutional change' in an attempt to 'build constitutional change oneffective consensus'.36 In the past this non-partisan consensus-building has beenundertaken by constitutional committees and commissions, most recently by theConstitutional Commission in the 1980s. On this occasion the Constitutional Conventionserved this purpose.

The formal process of alteration of the constitution by referendum is set out in section 128of the Constitution. It is a two-stage process: initiation by the parliament and ratificationby the people. First, the proposed bill must be passed by both houses of theCommonwealth' Parliament (although under certain limited circumstances the GovernorGeneral can authorise a referendum question which has only passed one house). Secondly,the proposal must be put to the people and passed at a referendum.

The referendum campaign is accompanied by govemment distribution to each householdof a pamphlet including the cases for YES and NO (each in 2000 words or less) and astatement outlining the textual alterations and additions to the Constitution that have beenproposed. This is in accordance with the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act, 1984.37

The preparation and authorisation of these cases is the responsibility of thoseparliamentarians who voted accordingly in the parliament. The NO case is prepared only ifthere are votes against the bill in the Parliament.

The limitations of this method of informing electors have previously been recognised.38

The government has been prevented from spending any other money in support of theYES case, whatever spending is undertaken by other organisations, including stategovernments. The official arguments have tended to be partisan cases rather than theprovision of reasonably factual information. It is for these reasons that alterations to theprocess have been agreed to under the Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 (seebelow).

Once the vote has been taken the proposed change is approved if two majorities areachieved: an overall majority of voters and a majority of voters in a majority (i.e. four ormore) of the states. The votes from the two territories are only counted in the calculationof the national result. These requirements have caused some referendums to fail. Fiveproposals, including most recently Simultaneous Elections for the House ofRepresentatives and the Senate in 1977, have failed despite attracting overall majorities.39

There have been no cases of the reverse occurring.

Public Opinion

Surveys of Australian attitudes towards the monarchy and republican constitutionalchange have been undertaken by polling organisations since 1953, at which time supportfor a republic was IS per cent.40 Appendices 3 and 4 contain the pro-republic and pro-

13


monarchy percentages from then until February 1999.41 Analysts of these surveys pointout that they need to be interpreted cautiously as the wording of the questions is rarelyidentical and attitudes vary according to the question asked.

Majority community support as measured by public opinion polls does not necessarilytranslate into majority support for the YES case at a referendum. Support may evaporateduring the referendum campaign. In one famous case of this the Menzies government'sreferendum to ban the Communist Party in 1951 was defeated, after a NO campaign led bythe Labor Party leader Dr H. V. Evatt, despite previously enjoying apparent majoritycommtrrritysupport.42

Broadly speaking Australians favoured the monarchy until the 1990s. There was not asingle case of a majority for the republic, although the size of the minority steadilyincreased, reaching about 25 per cent in the 1960s and about 30 per cent in the 1970s.During the 1980s the majority for the monarchy was usually about 60 per cent with about30 per cent supporting a republic and about 10 per cent undecided.43

This changed quite quickly in the 1990s for reasons discussed earlier. They includedgrowing nationalism stimulated by earlier events such as the 1988 Bicentennialcelebrations, the changing character of the Australian commtrrrity and the active supportfor a republic now emanating from some community organisations and political parties. In1991-92 support for republicanism increased and individual surveys began to report eithermajority opinion (more than 50 per cent) or plurality opinion (greater than support for themonarchy but less than 50 per cent because of undecided respondents) in favour of arepublic.

Attitudes towards the monarchy/republic vary according to the social and politicalbackground of the respondents in ways that are generally not surprising given the generalcharacter of Australian political life. Liberal and National voters are much more likely tosupport the monarchy than Labor voters. So too are a number of other categories,including: women rather than men; older rather than younger citizens; rural rather thanurban residents; members of the main Protestant denominations rather than Catholics andthose of no religious affiliation; and Australians born in England rather than otherAustralians.44 As for regional differences, accordin~ to one study, Queenslanders andTasmanians stand out as supporters of the status quo.4

By the time of the Constitutional Convention in February 1998 surveys regularly reporteda majority in favour of an Australian republic ~though this is not to say that this is howAustralians would have voted at a referendum). 6 As the ARMlKeating minimalist modelbecame more clearly defined surveys began to test public opinion towards this particularmodel. They reported that faced with a choice between a president directly elected by thepeople and a president elected by parliament a large majority supported the former. Forinstance, a poll taken in the first week of February 1998, during the ConstitutionalConvention, reported that 66 per cent supported election by popular vote compared withelection by Parliament (17 per cent) and the McGarvie model (10 per cent).47 When pitted

14


against the status quo only the popular election model produced a majority for therepublic. At the Constitutional Convention itself advocates of direct election, notablyAssociate Professor Patrick O'Brien from WA, made great play of these survey results.48

Since then most surveys have addressed this aspect of the question as well as opinionfor/against the republic. Surveys continue to show majority support for a directly electedpresident. They show also that, despite continued majority support for a republic theparliamentary model that was recommended by the Constitutional Convention would nothave majority support and would fail to pass. for instance, this was the case in both anAge/AC Nielsen poll in January 1999 and a Newspoll survey in March 1999.49 Theformer, presented under the headline 'Voters reject republic' reported that only 41 per centwould vote for a republic with an appointed president. The figure in the latter was only 33per cent and the headline was 'Republic case in crisis'. Yet on both occasions generalsupport for a republic was far greater, by about 15 per cent, than general support for themonarchy.

Nevertheless, there is no agreement as to what these results actually mean.50 The wordingof questions continues to make quite a difference (which suggests that the wording of thereferendum question may also be crucial to the outcome). furthermore, there continues tobe a substantial number of Australians, between 10 per cent and 17 per cent of thecommunity, that is uncommitted.

The most favourable recent response in favour of the republic came from a pollcommissioned by the ARM and conducted by Newspoll in January 1999. The questionread:

The referendum later this year will propose to amend the Constitution to replace theQueen with an Australian Head of State chosen by a two-thirds majority of Parliamentwith the support ofboth sides ofpolitics. Tbis will very likely mean that the new Head ofState will not be a politician. With this in mind will you yourself vote YES or will youvote NO in the referendum to make this change to the Constitution? The result was58.3 per cent YES, 30.7 per cent NO and 10.8 per cent DON'T KNOWIREFUSED,.51

Major Participants in The Debate

The positions of those who will playa major role in the referendum debate have nowalmost all been made public. The processes are being led by the Prime Minister, theAttorney-General, who has responsibility for the bills, and the Special Minister of State,who has responsibility for the conduct of the referendum itself, with the administrativesupport of the Referendum Taskforce. for further details see Appendix 5.

The Liberal Party is divided and there are both monarchists and republicans in about equalnumbers among Cabinet ministers. The National Party is uniformly monarchist and theLabor Party is solidly republican. The Australian Democrats are republican and are

IS


currently deliberating further within their party on the merits of the referendum modelversus popular election. State political leaders have generally declared their positions andmost are republicans. For further details of all these party positions at bothCommonwealth and State level, and those of the Greens and Pauline Hanson's One NationParty see Appendix 5.

The major part of the advocacy in the debate will be carried out by committed communityorganisations. On the YES side these include the Australian Republican Movement,Conservatives for an Australian Head of State, members of the YES Coalition and anumber of smaller republican groups. For further details of these organisations seeAppendix 6. The NO side includes Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, RealRepublicans, and the Returned Services League. For further details see Appendix 7.

Leading members of these organisations have come together in the YES and NO campaigncommittees. For further details, including staff, see Appendix 8

Important participants also include some uncommitted bodies, such as the ConstitutionalCentenary Foundation, which engages in public education and Issues DeliberationAustralia, which will conduct a deliberative poll, Australia Deliberates: A Republic. Yesor No on 22-24 October 1999. For further details see Appendix 9.

Finally, there have been a number of individuals who have played a prominent role. Manyof them are formally part of the advocacy groups and are discussed in this paper in thatcontext, but some republicans, on both the YES and the NO side, are unattached. Fordetails see Appendix 10.

Issues for Resolution during 1999

The Timing of the Referendum

It now appears almost certain that the referendum will be held on Saturday, 6 November.52

The referendum legislation will be introduced about mid-year. The referendum must beheld no less than two months and no more than six months after the legislation haspassed.53

The Referendum Questions

The Prime Minister decided, early in 1999, that there would be two questions-one on therepublic and one on a new preamble to the constitution.54 Mr Howard announced that hewould take a personal interest in the drafting of the Preamble. The Attorney-General

16


would take responsibility for the Republic question. Coalition MPs were told at this timethat the republic question would ask whether the 'Constitution should be altered toestablish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with a president chosen by a twothirds majority of Parliament'.55 Each question's wording will be the final responsibility ofCabinet.

On 9 March the government released the Exposure Draft of the Constitution Alteration(Establishment of Republic) 1999 Bill for public comment by 16 April. The draft does notdepart from the major recommendations of the Constitutional Convention in regard to theappointment and removal of the President, and hislher powers.56 The same is true of theposition of the states. Any state 'that has not altered its laws to sever its links with theCrown by the time the office of Governor-General ceases to exist retains its links with theCrown until it has so altered its laws'. 57 The bill addresses some additional matters, such asthe positions of Acting President and Deputy President, and removes all references to theQueen and the Governor-General.

The proposed question has so far proved relatively uncontroversial, although AndrewRobb, for CAHS, has claimed that, by failing to mention the Queen, it 'includes a cleverselection of words most likely to provoke a negative reaction from people at the verymoment they go to vote'. Robb proposed an alternative wording along the following lines:'A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for an Australian citizen, chosen by atwo thirds majority of a joint sitting of the Federal Parliament, to replace the BritishMonarch as Australia's head ofstate'. 58

The Public Education Programme

The traditional paper versions of the YES and NO cases will be supplemented on thisoccasion by wider distribution, including on the Internet. Furthermore, the government hasallocated $4.5 million funding to a separate public education programme.59 Thisprogramme is likely to begin towards the end of May, peaking in September. It willinclude:

• information on the current system ofgovernment

• information on the referendum process, and

• information on the actual questions.

The campaign will be advised by an advisory panel of experts, chaired by Sir NinianStephen and also including Professor Geoffrey Blainey, Dr Colin Howard QC, ProfessorCheryl Saunders and Dr John Hirst.6o The Newspoll organisation has been commissionedto survey the community's existing knowledge about the above questions.

17


The YES and NO Media Campaigns

There will also be a $15 million government funded media campaign organised by twoten-person teams drawn from the Constitutional Convention delegates.61 These campaignswill occur in the month leading up to the referendum, after the conclusion of thegovernment's public education campaign.

The Presidential Nominations Committee

The consultative committee, which if the referendum is successful will be responsible forrecommending names to the prime minister, will have 32 members. It will be known as thePresidential Nominations Committee. Half of its membership will be politicians-eightfrom the federal parliament and eight from the states and territories. The Commonwealthmembers will be chosen on the basis of the representation of parties in the parliament. Onestate representative will be nominated by each state parliament or territory legislativeassembly. The other 16 will be community representatives, who may not beparliamentarians, appointed by the prime minister (they could however be formerparliamentarians).62 One member of the committee will be appointed as the convenor.

On 9 March the Exposure Draft of the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999 wasreleased for public comment by 16 April.

Implications for the States

The major developments so far have been statements of personal position by state andterritory leaders and MPs (see below). The implications for the states were discussed at thePremiers Conference in April 1999 but no resolution was reached.63 However, if thereferendum is passed it appears that all Australian governments are aiming for asimultaneous change to a republic on 1 January, 2001.64

Conclusion

It is too early to predict the shape of the referendum campaign, much less the outcome.The relevant bills have not yet been passed by the parliament and the campaign proper isyet to begin. We do not yet even know if the referendum will have one question or two.The media are still concentrating on other things and may well do so until October.

What we do know however that the publicly funded campaign for this historic referendumis likely to be the most expensive ever undertaken. The 1999-2000 Budget estimates that

18


the referendum will cost the government $79 million. There will also be considerableprivately funded campaigning. Judging by the campaign appointments made so far it willbe fought with all the techniques of modem election campaigning. It will include largescale, centralised media and direct mail campaigns as well as local grass-roots activities.In scale it will be at least the equivalent in size of a federal election campaign, perhapsbigger.

Judging by the debate so far it will also be as divisive as any previous referendum. Thearguments will be extremely wide-ranging, covering many aspects of the Australianpolitical system, and there will be numerous participants. On both the YES and the NOsides there will be a variety of views expressed because each side is made up of a loosecoalition of organisations. Because there is a great deal at stake it is likely that there willbe no holds barred.

An important aspect of the campaigns, in addition to substantive arguments about therepublic, will be the debate about whether the timing of the proposed change is appropriateand what will follow if the referendum where to be defeated. There are various viewsabout this question.65 The question of whether or not there will be another referendum inthe foreseeable future, should this one be defeated, may well influence the outcome.Would a NO vote entrench the constitutional monarchy or lead the way to a popularlyelected president or lead to another vote on the same republican model? Until we know thedimensions of the result on 6 November we can only speculate.

Endnotes

1. M. McKenna, The Captive Republic: A History ofRepublicanism in Australia, 1788-1996,Cambridge University Press, 1996; D. Headon, J. Warden and B. Gammage eds, Crown orCountry: The Traditions ofAustralian Republicanism, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1994.

2. G. Dutton, ed., Australia and the Monarchy, Sun Books, 1966; G. Dutton ed., RepublicanAustralia? Sun Books, 1977.

3. J. Warhurst, 'Nationalism and Republicanism in Australia: The Evolution of Institutions,Citizenship and Symbols', Australian Journal ofPolitical Science, vol. 28,1993, pp. 100-20.

4. C. Hide, 'The Recent Republic Debate-A Chronology', June 1996 in Department of theParliamentary Library, The Constitution Papers, Parliamentary Research Service, SubjectCollection No.7, Australian Government Publishing Service, 1996; McKenna, 'The CaptiveRepublic', Chapter II; Constitutional Convention Report, vol. I, Chapter 3.

5. ibid., vol. I, p. 13.

6. 'Republic Advisory Committee An Australian Republic: The Options', vol. I, The Report,Commonwealth ofAustralia, 1993.

19


7. ibid., p. 10.

8. M. Ryan, ed, Advancing Australia: The Speeches of Paul Keating, Prime Minister, BigPicture Publications, 1995, pp. 173-84.

9. W. Hudson and D. Carter, eds, The Republicanism Debate, New South Wales UniversityPress, 1993; S. Lawson and G. Maddox, eds, 'Australia's Republican Question', Special Issue,Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 28, 1993; G. Winterton ed., We, The People,Allen and Unwin, 1994.

10 For an analysis of the 1996 elections see C. Bean, S. Bennett, M. Simms and J. Warhurst eds,The Politics ofRetribution, Allen and Unwin, 1997.

11. Australian Electoral Commission Constitutional Convention Election 97: The AustralianElectoral Commission's Report and Statistics, Commonwealth of Australia, 1998.

12. ibid., p. 18.

13. ibid., p. 19.

14. Australian Electoral Commission Constitutional Convention Election 97, pp. 33--4.

15. Constitutional Convention Report, op. cit., pp. 58--{i0.

16. G. Williams, 'Constitutional Convention,'; Department of the Parliamentary Library, 1998;S. Vizard, Two Weeks in Lilliput, Penguin, 1998.

17. J. Curtin, 'The 1998 Women's Constitutional Convention', Research Note 21, Department ofthe Parliamentary Library, 1997-98.

18 A. Rollins 'Women's meeting backs republic with enshrined rights', The Age, 31 January1998.

19. Constitutional Convention Report, vol. 1, p. 1.

20. ibid., p. 43.

21. ibid., p. 38.

22. ibid., p. 38.

23. ibid., p. 47.

24. ibid., p. 49.

25. ibid., p. 45; in general on this model see also Constitutional Centenary Foundation, Voting ona Republic, CCF, 1998.

26. ibid., p. 44.

27. ibid., p. 44.

28. ibid., p. 44.

29. ibid., p. 45.

30. ibid., p. 45.

20


31. See also Scott Bennett and Sean Brennan, 'Constitutional Referenda in Australia',Forthcoming Research Paper, Department of the Parliamentary, 1998-99.

32. Constitutional Convention Report, vol. 1, p. 3.

33 B. Galligan, A Federal Republic: Australia's constitutional System ofGovernment, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995, p. 121.

34. B. Galligan, 'The Politics of Constitutional Change' in M. Coper and G. Williams, eds, Power,Parliament and the People, The Federation Press, 1997, pp. 6-15; C. Saunders, 'TheAustralian experience with constitutional review', Australian Quarterly, vol. 66, no. 3, Spring1994, pp. 49-66.

35. B. Galligan and J. R. Nethercote, eds, The Constitutional Commission and the 1988Referendums, Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations and Royal AustralianInstitute ofPublic Administration (ACT Division), Canberra, 1989.

36. Saunders, 'The Australian experience ... ', op. cit., p. 54.

37. Section 11 Distribution to Electors ofArguments For and Against Proposed Law.

38. E. Campbell, 'Southey Memorial Lecture 1988: Changing the Constitution-Past and Future',Melbourne University Law Review, vol. 17, no.l, June 1989, pp. 1-23; L. Lenaz-Hoare, 'TheHistory of the 'YES/NO' Case in Federal Referendums, and a Suggestion for the Future', inAustralian Constitutional Convention, Constitutional Amendment Sub-Committee, Report toStanding Committee, 1984, Appendix 5, pp. 85-93; C. Saunders, 'Referendum Procedures' inibid, Appendix 7, pp. 111-7.

39. Saunders, 'The Australian Experience .. .', op. cit., p. 55.

40. M. Goot, 'Monarchy or Republic? An Analysis of the Questions and Answers in Surveys ofAustralian Public Opinion', in Executive Government: Report of the Advisory Committee tothe Constitutional Commission, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 1987; C. Bean,'Public Attitudes on the Monarchy-Republic Issue', Australian Journal of Political Science,vol. 28, Special Issue, 1993, pp. 190-206; M. Goot, 'Contingent inevitability: Reflections onthe prognosis for republicanism' in G. Winterton, ed, We, the People, op. cit., pp. 63-96.

41. Opinion polls on an Australian republic: 1953-1999, Australian Republican Movement,http://www.republic.org.au/issues/pollsumm.html. 7 April 1999.

42 L. C. Webb, Communism and Democracy in Australia: A Survey of the 1951 Referendum,Praeger, 1955.

43. Bean, op. cit., p. 193, Table 1 'Attitudes towards the Monarchy-Republic Issue, 1967-1990 (inpercentages)'.

44. Bean, op. cit., pp. 196-201.

45. Bean, op. cit., p. 1999.

46. For instance, see Roy Morgan Research Centre, Australian Financial Review, 14 February1998: YES 53 per cent; NO 39 per cent; 'UNDECIDED' 8 per cent.

47. Newspoll,Australian, 10 February 1998.

21


48. Australian, 11 February 1998.

49. The Age, 26 January 1999; Australian, 3 March 1999.

50. M. McKenna, 'Too early fotllOiling pessimism', Australian, 1 March 1999.

51. Newspoll Market Research, Job No. 990103, Republic Study, January 1999.

52 Australian Financial Review, 13 May 1999.

53. D. Williams, 'Republic Referendum: The Process Leading to the Referendum', video addressto the National Convention ofRepublicans, 6 February 1999.

54. 16 February 1999.

55. Australian Financial Review, 17 February 1999.

56. Constitutional Centenary Foundation, Analysis of the Constitution Alteration (Establishmentof the Republic) Bill 1999 and the Presidential Nomination Committee Bill 1999, Melbourne,1999.

57. Exposure Draft, section 5 'The States'.

58. A. Robb, 'An Australian Head of State ... a small, yet symbolic step', National Press Club,29 March 1999, p. 4.

59. Senator Chris Ellison, Senate Hansard, 29 March 1999.

60 The Hon. Daryl Williams, Attorney-General, and Senator the Hon. Chris Ellison, SpecialMinister of State, 'Expert Panel for the Public Education Progranune for the Referendum onthe Australian Republic', Joint News Release, 20 April 1999.

61. The Hon. Daryl Williams, Attorney-General and Senator the Hon Chris Ellison, SpecialMinister of State, 'Advertising for the referendum on the republic', Joint News Release,16 February 1999, and 'Committees for the advertising for the referendum on the republic',Joint News Release, 19 February 1999.


63. L. Dodson, 'A state of concern about the fate of Governors', Australian Financial Review,10 April 1999.

64. Australian, 16 April 1999.

65. J. Warhurst, 'Much to debate before November 6', Canberra Times, 15 May 1999.

22

Appendix 1: Delegates to the 1998 Constitutional Convention


1. Elected delegates (in order of election for each State and Territory)

New South Wales

1. Mr Malcolm Turnbull (Australian Republican Movement)

2. Mr Doug Sutherland (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

3. Mr Ted Mack (Ted Mack)

4. Ms Wendy Machin (Australian Republican Movement)

5. Mrs Kerry Jones (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

6. Mr Ed Haber (Ted Mack)

7. The Hon Neville Wran AC QC (Australian Republican Movement)

8. Cr Julian Leeser (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

9. Ms Karin Sowada (Australian Republican Movement)

10. Mr Peter Grogan (Australian Republican Movement)

11. Ms Jennie George (Australian Republican Movement)

12. Ms Christine Ferguson (No Republie--Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

13. Mr Alasdair P Webster (Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group))

14. Ms Glenda Hewitt (ungrouped-I Care About Australia's Future)

15. Dr Pat O'Shane AM (A Just Republic)

16. Brigadier Alf Garland AM (Australian Monarchist League)

17. Mr Andrew Gunter (Ethos-Elect the Head of State)

18. Ms Hazel Hawke (Australian Republican Movement)

19. Mr Jason Yat-Sen Li (ungrouped-A Multi-Cultural Voice)

20. Ms Catherine Moore (Greens, Bill ofRights, Indigenous Peoples)

Victoria

1. Mr Eddie McGuire (Australian Republican Movement)

2. The Hon Don Chipp AO (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

3. The Reverend Tim Costello (Real Republic)

4. Mr Bruce Ruxton AM OBE (Safeguard the People)

5. Ms Mary Delahunty (Australian Republican Movement)

6. Ms Sophie Panopoulos (No Republie--Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

7. . Mr Steve Vizard AM (Australian Republican Movement)

8. Ms Poppy King (Australian Republican Movement)

9. Mr Lindsay Fox AO (Australian Republican Movement)

23


10. The Hon Vernon Wilcox CBE (Safeguard the People)

11. Ms Moira Rayner (Real Republic)

12. Ms Misha Schubert (Republic4U-The Youth Ticket)

13. The Hon Jim Ramsay (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

14. MrKenneth Gifford QC (Australian Monarchist League)

15. Mr Phil Cleary (ungrouped-Phil Cleary-Independent Australia)

16. Mr Eric G Bullmore (Shooters Party)

Queensland

1. The Hon James Killen KCMG (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

2. Dr Clem Jones (Clem Jones Queensland Constitutional Republic Team)

3. The Hon Michael Lavarch (Australian Republican Movement)

4. Dr Glen Sheil (Constitutional Monarchists)

5. Mr Neville Bonner AO (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

6. Mr David Alexander Muir (Clem Jones Queensland Constitutional RepUblic Team)

7. Ms Sallyanne Atkinson AO (Australian Republican Movement)

8. Mr Thomas Bradley (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

9. Lady Florence Isabel Bjelke-Petersen (Constitutional Monarchists)

10. Ms Mary Kelly (Women for a Just Republic)

11. Ms Sarina Russo (Australian Republican Movement)

12. Cr Paul Tully (Queenslanders for a Republic)

13. Cr Ann Bunnell (Clem Jones Queensland Constitutional Republic Team)

Western Australia

1. Ms Janet Hohnes a Court AO (Australian Republican Movement)

2. The Rt Hon Reg Withers (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

3. ProfPeter Tannock (Australian Republican Movement)

4. Mr GeoffHoum (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

5. Mr Graham Edwards (Australian Republican Movement)

6. Ms Clare Thompson (Australian Republican Movement)

7. Ms Marylyn Rodgers (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

8. Mr Liam Bartlett (ungrouped-An Open Mind for the FutUre)

9. ProfPatrick O'Brien (Elect the President)

24

Appendix I: Delegates tothe 1998 Constitutional Convention

South Australia

1. Mr Kym Bonython AC DFC APC (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

2. Dr Baden Teague (Australian Republican Movement)

3. The Right Reverend John Hepworth (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

4. Ms Linda Kirk (Australian Republican Movement)

5. Ms Victoria Manetta (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

6. Dr Tony Cocchiaro (Australian Republican Movement)

7. Father John Fleming (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

8. Ms Kirsten Andrews (Australian Republican Movement)

Tasmania

1. Mr Edward O'Farrell CVO CBE (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

2. Mr Julian Green (Australian Republican Movement)

3. Mr Michael Castle (No Republic-Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

4. Ms Marguerite Scott (Australian Republican Movement)

5. Dr David Mitchell (The Australian Monarchist League)

6. Mr Eric Lockett (ungrouped-Voice of Ordinary, Fair-Minded, Thinking Citizens)

Australian Capital Territory

1. Ms Anne Witheford (Australian Repubican Movement)

2. Mr Frank Cassidy (Australian Republican Movement)

Northern Territory

1. Mr David Curtis (A Just Republic)

2. Mr Michael Kilgariff (ungrouped-Territory Republican)

2. Appointed delegates-nan-parliamentary

Ms Andrea Ang (WA)

Ms Stella Axarlis (VIC)

Ms Dannalee Bell (VIC)

Ms Julie Bishop (WA)

Prof Geoffrey Blainey AO (VIC)

Prof Greg Craven (WA)

Ms Miranda Devine (NSW)

Mr Gatjil Djerrkura OAM (NT)

Mr Donald McGauchie AC (VIC)

The Hon Dame Roma Mitchell AC (SA)

Mr Carl Moller (TAS)

Cr Joan Moloney (QLD)

Mr George Mye MBE AM (QLDfIAS)

Mr Ben Myers (QLD)

Ms Moira O'Brien (NT)

Dr Lois O'Donoghue CBE AM (SA)

25

Appendix I: Delegates to the 1998 Constitutional Convention

Ms Mia Handshin (SA)

The Hon Bill Hayden AC (QLD)

The Most Reverend Peter HollingworthAO OBE (QLD)Ms Mary Imlach (TAS)

Major General W B James AO MBE MC(QLD)Mr Adam Johnston (NSW)

Mrs Annette Knight AM (WA)

Dame Leonie Kramer AC (NSW)

Ms Helen Lynch AM (NSW)

The Hon Richard McGarvie AC (VIC)

Commonwealth

Sir Arvi Parbo AC (VIC)

The Most Reverend George Pell (VIC)

Ms Nova Peris-Kneebone OAM (NTIWA)

Mr Peter Sams (NSW)

ProfJudith Sloan (SA)

Sir David Smith KCVO AO (ACT)

ProfTrang Thomas AM (VIC)

Mr Lloyd Waddy RFD QC (NSW)

Prof George Winterton (NSW)

Ms Heidi Zwar (ACT)

Government

The Hon John Howard MP (Prime Minister)The Hon Peter Costello MP (Treasurer)The Hon Daryl Williams AM QC MP (Attorney-General)Senator the Hon Robert Hill (Minister for the Environment)Senator the Hon Jocelyn Newman (Minister for Social Security)Mr Neil Andrew MPMrs Chris Gallus MPMr Kevin Andrews MPSenator Alan FergusonThe Hon Tim Fischer MP (Deputy Prime Minister)The Hon John Anderson MP (Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)Senator Ron Boswell (Leader of the National Party of Australia in the Senate)

Australian Labor PartyThe Hon Kim Beazley MP (Leader of the Opposition)The Hon Gareth Evans QC MPSenator the Hon John Faulkner (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)Senator Sue West (Deputy President ofthe Senate)Senator the Hon Nick BolkusSenator Kate Lundy

Australian DemocratsSenator Natasha Stott Despoja

26


Independent/GreenMr Allan Rocher MP

StatelTerritory

NSWThe Hon Bob Carr MP (Premier)The Hon Peter Collins QC MP (Leader of the Opposition)The Hon Jeff Shaw QC MLC (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations)

VICThe Hon Jeff Kennett MLA (Premier)Mr John Brumby MLA (Leader of the Opposition)The Hon Pat McNamara MLA (Deputy Premier and Minister for Agriculture)

QlDThe Hon Rob Borbidge MLA (Premier)Mr Peter Beattie MLA (Leader of the Opposition)The Hon Denver Beanland MLA(Attorney-General and Minister for Justice)

WAThe Hon Richard Court MLA (Premier)Dr Geoffrey Gallop MLA (Leader of the Opposition)The Hon Hendy Cowan MLA (Deputy Premier)

SAThe Hon John Olsen FNIA MP (Premier)The Hon Michael Rann MP (Leader of the Opposition)Mr Mike Elliott MLC (Leader of the Australian Democrats)

TASThe Hon Tony Rundle MHA (Premier)Mr Jim Bacon MBA (Leader of the Opposition)Mrs Christine Milne MHA (Leader of the Tasmanian Greens)

TerritoriesMrs Kate Camell MLA (Chief Minister, ACT)The Hon Shane Stone MLA (Chief Minister, Northern Territory)

Source: http://www.dpmc.gov.au/convention/delegate.htm

27

Appendix 2: Summary ofConstitutional Referendums

Appendix 2: Summary of Constitutional Referendums

Subject Date Government Yes YesStates Per cent

1 Senate Elections' Dec 1906' Non-Labor All 82.72 State Debts' Apr 1910b Non-Labor 5 54.93 Finance Apr 1910b Non-Labor 3 49.04 Legislative Powers' Apr 1911 Labor 1 (WA) 39.45 Monopolies' Apr 1911 Labor 1 (WA) 39.96 Trade and Connnerce' May 1913b Labor 3 49.47 CorporationsC May 1913b Labor 3 49.38 Industrial Matters' May 1913b Labor 3 49.39 Trusts' May 1913b Labor 3 49.810 Nationalisation ofMonopolies' May 1913b Labor 3 49.311 Railway Disputes' May 1913b Labor 3 49.112 Legislative Powers' Dec 1919b Non-Labor 3 49.713 Nationalisation ofMonopolies' Dec 1919b Non-Labor 3 48.614 Industry and Connnerce' Sep 1926 Non-Labor 2 43.515 Essential Servicesc Sep 1926 Non-Labor 2 42.816 State Debts' Nov 1928b Non-Labor All 74.317 AviationC Mar 1937 Non-Labor 2 53.618 Marketing' Mar 1937 Non-Labor None 36.319 Reconstruction, Democratic Rights Aug 1944 Labor 2 46.020 Social Servicesac Sep 1946b Labor All 54.421 Marketing ofPrimary Products' Sep 1946b Labor 3 50.622 Industrial Employment' Sep 1946b Labor 3 50.323 Rents and Prices' May 1948 Labor None 40.724 Communismc Sep 1951 Non-Labor 3 49.425 Parliament May 1967 Non-Labor 1 (NSW) 40.326 Aboriginalsac May 1967 Non-Labor All 90.827 Pricesc Dec 1973 Labor None 43.828 Incomesc Dec 1973 Labor None 34.429 Simultaneous Electionsd May 1974b Labor 1 (NSW) 48.330 Alteriog Constitution May 1974b Labor 1 (NSW) 48.031 Democratic Elections May 1974b Labor 1 (NSW) 47.232 Local Government Bodies' May 1974b Labor 1 (NSW) 46.933 Simultaneous Electionsd May 1977 Non-Labor 3 62.234 Senate Casual Vacancies' May 1977 Non-Labor All 73.335 Referendums' May 1977 Non-Labor All 77.736 Retirement ofJUd~es' May 1977 Non-Labor All 80.137 Terms of Senators Dec 1984b Labor 2 50.638 Interchange ofPowers Dec 1984b Labor None 47.139 Parliamentary Terms Sep 1988 Labor None 32.940 Fair Elections Sep 1988 Labor None 37.641 Local Government Sep 1988 Labor None 33.642 Rights and Freedoms Sep 1988 Labor None 30.8

(a) Referendum carried.(b) Held on same day as general election.(c) Referendum including a proposed amendment to section 51.(d) These three proposals were identical even though the titles varied.

Source: I. McAllister, Malcolm Mackerras, Alvaro Ascui and Susan Moss, Australian Political Facts,Longman Cheshire, 1990, p. 80.

29

Appendix 3: Opinion Polls on an Australian Republic

Appendix 3: Opinion Polls on an Australian RepublicOpinion polls on an Australian republic: 1953-1999

Opinion Polls on an Australian Republic

IlO

70

,.goo'[g-40"

:lIl

,.,.

1:"956 1:961) 1tu 1~ 1m 1m 19110 1984 18 19$2 1* 2QOO

Dot.

These graphs (bottom graph shows same in detail for the last 15 years) show the changing mood of theAustralian people over the past 46 years on the issue of Australia retaining the monarchy or becoming arepublic. Despite variations up and down, the increasing trend of support for a republic is undeniable and itis now clear that a majority of Australians want to see Australia become a republic.

Oplnlon Polls on an Australian Republl~

70

IS

,.50

50l:1~•'"40

:IS

30

25

,.~~iJi0~~~:i2Jan19B4 Jan1i9BS ....,1988 Jan1990 Jul19t2 Jan1lU JaniS JlIIl:l1. JM2UJO

Dot.

Source: http://www.republic.org.au/issues/pollsumm.html

31

Appendix 4: Poll Data


Date PoUster and (question) Pro-republic % Pro-monarchy % Undecided

June 1953 Morgan Gallup Poll (a) 15 77 8April 1966 Morgan Gallup Poll (b) 22 65 13July 1966 Morgan Gallup Poll (b) 28 63 9February 1968 Morgan Gallup Poll (b) 40 53 7October 1969 Morgan Gallup Poll (a) 24 64 12June 1970 Morgan Gallup Poll (c) 26 68 6February 1973 Morgan Gallup Poll (a) 42 50 8November 1973 Morgan Gallup Poll (c) 32 53 15December 1975 Bulletin (a) 28 61 11October 1976 Bulletin (a) 25 60 15December 1976 Age (b) 39 58 3April 1977 Bulletin (a) 26 62 12December 1978 Sun Herald (a) 31 61 8

Australian Public Opinion Polls-the31 61 8

November 1979 Gallup Method (a)Apri11980 Age (b) 36 61 3August 1981 Bulletin (a) 28 59 13

Australian Public Opinion Polls-the30 60 10

September 1982 Gallup Method (a)January 1983 Bulletin (a) 28 60 12January 1984 Bulletin (a) 30 62 8February 1985 Age (a) 30 63 81984-85 National Social Science Survey (d) 41 59 0April 1985 Quadrant (e) 30 62 8March 1986 Frank Small & Associates (i) 36 45 161986-87 National Social Science Survey (d) 40 59 1October 1987 Newspoll (e) 21 64 151987-88 National Social Science Survey (d) 41 59 01990 National Social Science survey (d) 41 58 0June 1991 Newspoll (e) 34 52 14February 1992 Saulwick (I) 57 39 4March 1992 Newspoll (e) 44 40 16April 1992 Saulwick (I) 56 42 3May 1992 Newspoll (e) 41 45 14March 1993 Saulwick (I) 66 30 4April 1993 Newspoll (e) 46 35 19April 1993 AGB McNair (e) 45 36 19April 1993 Morgan (g) 52 38 10April 1993 Morgan (h) 56 35 9July 1993 Newspoll (e) 46 36 18July 1993 Saulwick (I) 62 34 4September 1993 Newspoll (b) 39 44 17October 1993 AGB McNair (e) 48 42 10November 1993 Newspoll (e) 39 44 17December 1993 Morgan (h) 44 48 8March 1994 Newspoll (e) 39 43 18September 1994 Newspoll (e) 42 43 15March 1995 Newspoll (e) 47 34 19July 1995 Newspoll (e) 50 35 15

33


Date Pollster and (question) Pro-republic % Pro-monarchy % Undecided

December 1996 AGB McNair (e) 55 38 7February 1997 Newspoll (e) 47 28 25June 1997 Newspoll (e) 49 30 21September i997 Newspoll (e) 54 30 16November 1997 Newspoll (e) 52 33 15December 1997 Constitutional Convention Election 57 34 9December 1997 Newspoll (e) 51 35 14February 1998 Roy Morgan (g) 52 37 11January 1999 Newspoll (e) 48 35 17February 1999 Newspoll CD 58 31 11

Questions Asked

(a) Retain the Monarchy or become a Republic?(b) Retain present links with the United Kingdom or become an entirely separate Republic?(c) At the end of the Queen Elizabeth's reign, should we recognise Charles as King or become a Republic with an

elected President?(d) Should Australia retain the Queen as Head of State or become a Republic? ('Definitely' and 'Probably' figures

combined in the table)(e) Should Australia become a Republic?(I) Should Australia remain a Monarchy within the (British) Commonwealth, become a Republic within the

Commonwealth, or a Republic outside the Commonwealth? (Republic figure in the table is a composite of thelatter two answers)

(g) Should Australia remain a Monarchy or become a Republic with an elected President?(h) Should Australia remain a Monarchy or become a Republic by the year 200l?(i) Question not specified.G) The referendum later this year will propose to amend the Constitution to replace the Queen with an Australian

Head of State chosen by a two-thirds majority ofParliament with the support of both sides ofpolitics. Will youvote YES or will you vote NO in the referendum to make this change to the Constitution?"

Source: G. Winterton, Monarchy to Republic: Australian Republican Government, Oxford UniversityPress, 1994.

Figures since 1994 from The Australian and Sydney Morning Herald archives.

Source: Australian Republican Movement, http://www.republic.org.au/issues/pollsumm.html

34

Appendix 5: Governments and Political Parties


The Prime Minister

The Prime Minister, John Howard, has taken the position that parliamentary members ofthe Liberal Party will have a free/conscience vote at the time of the referendum, and theywill be able to campaign freely in the lead up to the referendum vote. This position hassince been extended to the National Party members of the Coalition. He has maintained hispersonal position in support of the status quo, while giving an undertaking not to campaignfor either NO or YES.

In January 1999 the Prime Minister wrote to the premiers asking for their commitment tohelp push through constitutional change simultaneously if the referendum passes.2

Attorney-General

The Attorney General, Daryl Williams, has responsibility for the carriage of the bills in theParliament and chairs the Referendum Task Force (sometimes referred to as thereferendum steering group).

On 19 February 1999 Williams announced the names of the two ten-member teamsresponsible for planning and managing national paid media campaigns to supplement theofficial YES and NO campaigns prior to the referendum.

The members of the YES team are: Malcom Turnbull, Janet Holmes a Court, NevilleWran, Lowitja O'Donoghue, Gareth Evans MHR, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, ChrisGallus MHR, Jason Yat-Sen Li, Professor Greg Craven and Steve Vizard.

The members of the NO team are Kerry Jones, Cr Julian Leeser, Major-General "Digger"James, Senator Ron Boswell, Dame Leonie Kramer, Senator Alan Ferguson, Sir DavidSmith, Heidi Zwar, Ted Mack and Clem Jones. The first eight are monarchists while thelast two are direct election republicans.

Each was given responsibility for half ($7.5 million) of the $15 million allocated for thenational media component of the YES and NO cases. Guidelines, released in April by theAttorney-General, will apply to these campaigns which will be restricted to the monthleading up to the referendum. Under the guidelines:

• the committees must restrict their activities to the use of the Commonwealth govenunentfunding and cannot accept donations or raise other funds

• competitive selection processes should be considered for work contracted out where this isfeasible and there should be proper monitoring of the performance of contractors

35


• records are to be made available for audit and are to be transferred in full to PrimeMinister & Cabinet

• the committees will be required to submit a proposed budget for consideration by theMinisterial Council on Government Communications; and

• administrative costs are limited and committee members are only allowed travelexpenses.3

The Special Minister of State

Senator Chris Ellison has responsibility for the conduct of the referendum by theAustralian Electoral Commission and is the other ministerial member of the ReferendumTaskForce.

The Referendum Taskforce (RTF)

The RTF comprises the two ministerial members, staff members from the Prime Minister'soffice, the Attomey-General's office and the Special Minister of State's office and officialsfrom the Attorney-General's Department.4 The RTF is supported by a secretariat based inthe Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. It is composed of officers from PMC andthe Attorney-General's department, assisted by AEC officials. Its convenor is JohnDoherty.s

Contact: Mr J. Doherty, convenor, Referendum Taskforce, Department of Prime Ministerand Cabinet, 3-5 National Circuit, Barton, ACT, 2600. Freecall: 13 24 47; Telephone:(02) 6271 5564; Facsimile: (02) 6271 5566. Email: [email protected]

State Governments

While state governments have no formal role in the referendum .process several of themhave conducted their own inquiries (WA in 1995; SA in 1996). All state premiers andopposition leaders and the territory chief ministers took part in the ConstitutionalConvention, where they adopted a range ofpositions in voting on the proposed models.

In 1999 several state leaders have declared their positions. Jim Bacon (Labor, Tasmania),Peter Beattie (Labor, QLD), Kate Carnell (Liberal, ACT), Bob Carr (Labor, NSW), JeffKennett (Liberal, Victoria) and John Olsen (Liberal, SA) support the YES case.s So do theOpposition leaders in Tasmania (Liberal) and Victoria, South Australia, ACT and NT (allLabor).

Richard Court (Liberal, WA) has reaffirmed his support for the NO case, but his deputy,Colin Barnett supports the YES case.9 The two Opposition leaders who support the NOcase are Rob Borbidge (National, QLD) and Kerry Chikarovski (Liberal, NSW), although

36


Ms Chikarovski declined to confirm this during the March 1999 NSW electioncampaign. 10

The Liberal Party

The Liberal Party reflects community divisions on the republic. It contains many declaredmonarchists, as well as the Prime Minister, including Cabinet ministers such as Dr DavidKemp and Senator Nick Minchin, who had carried responsibility for the ConstitutionalConvention, and ministers such as Bronwyn Bishop and Tony Abbott. I I Abbott has beenthe most outspoken monarchist and his address to the Queensland Young Liberals inJanuary 1999, which described republicanism as 'a kind of national feel-good pill orconstitutional Viagra, to be prescribed whether we need it or not', angered seniorrepublicans in the party. 12

Republican Liberals on the frontbench include the Treasurer, Peter Costello, EnvironmentMinister, Robert Hill, and Finance Minister, John Fahey.

Peter Reith, Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, supportsa popularly elected president and has announced that he will vote NO at the referendum.

There are a number of Liberal backbenchers who have contributed to the public debate.The Liberal MP on the official YES team is Chris Gallus, MHR for Hindmarsh, SouthAustralia. Senator Marise Payne (NSW) was once Deputy National Convenor of theARM. Senator Amanda Vanstone, Minister for Justice, spoke at the National Conventionof Republicans. Senator Alan Eggleston (yVA) has convened a group of parliamentaryLiberals for the republic and has served as patron for the ARM in Western Australia.

The National Party

The National Party, led by the Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, formally supports theconstitutional monarchy. 13 However, Fischer has stated that individual National Party MPswill be allowed a conscience vote.

Senator Ron Boswell, Leader of the National Party in the Senate, is a member of theofficial NO team. 14

The Australian Labor Party

The ALP formally supports a republic and since June 1991 has been committed to arepublic by 1 January 2001. 15 The party is committed to campaigning for a YES vote atthe referendum and Kim Beazley has restated this position on a number of occasions thisyear. 16 A preliminary discussion has been held at the ALP National Executive as towhether the party should declare the republic to be a conscience vote for MPs and partymembers. The NO case will include rank and file members such as Clem Jones, an ALPlife member, and Constitutional Convention delegate Paul Tully.17

37


The most prominent national Labor republicans are the Shadow Attorney-General, RobertMcClelland, and former Deputy Leader, Gareth Evans, who is a member of the officialYES team, and who drafted Labor's contribution to the Preamble debate. Graham EdwardsMHR (Cowan, WA) was an elected ARM delegate to the Constitutional Convention priorto his entry into parliament.

The Australian Democrats

Senator Natasha Stott Despoja (SA), Deputy Leader of the Democrats, is the mostprominent spokesperson for the official pro-republican position of the Democrats andsupports the YES case. She was a parliamentary delegate to the ConstitutionalConvention, spoke at the National Convention of Republicans and is a member of theofficial YES team. The Democrats advocate greater public participation in the process ofconstitutional reform and wanted the Constitutional Convention to be a fully electedbody.18

Senator Andrew Murray (WA) has expressed some disquiet at the official Democratsposition and has claimed that a directly elected president would make the executive moreaccountable. 19

The party is currently balloting its members to elaborate its policy by adding specificitems to its Constitutional Reform Policy on the question ofchoosing a Head of State.20

The Greens

The Greens have not been prominent in the debate and were not represented amongCommonwealth parliamentary delegates to the Constitutional Convention, although thedelegates included Christine Milne, then Leader of the Greens in the Tasmanianparliament and an elected NSW delegate, Catherine Moore. They are, in general, directelection republicans. Greens (WA) senator, Dee Margetts was critical of the ConstitutionalConvention process. She supports a further constitutional convention 'preceded byextensive community consultation' if the referendum is successful and, if it isunsuccessful, she advocates aRlebiscite at the next federal election on the question 'ShouldAustralia become a republic?' 1

Pauline Hanson's One Nation (PHON)

Like the Greens PHON was unrepresented among parliamentary delegates to theConstitutional Convention and the party has not played a prominent role in the debate. Ingeneral, because of its commitment to traditional British ties, PHON appears to supportthe NO case. Pauline Hanson declared her opposition to a republic for the first time in July1998.22 Senator-elect Heather Hill has suggested that.she will be voting against the newpreamble.23

38


Endnotes

1. 'PM promises no republic meddling', The Age, 18 December 1998.

2. West Australian, 5 February 1999.

3. Australian Financial Review, 13 April 1999.

4. Senator Ellison, Hansard, 29 March 1999, pp. 3091-92. The members are Tony Nutt andCatherine Murphy (prime Minister's office), Nick Grono and Simone Burford (AttorneyGeneral's office) and Senator Ellison's Chief of Staff, Alastair Kinloch. They are beingassisted by a number of officials including Henry Burmester, Chief General Counsel fromAttorney General's, Robert Orr, Deputy General Counsel, Ian Govey and Sandra Power.

5. The other members of the secretariat are Jim Faulkner, Wendy Southern, Nicholas Schofield,David Lewis, and from Prime Minister and Cabinet Alan Henderson. The ABC officials haveincluded Bill Gray, the Commissioner, and Paul Dacey.

6. Website: http://www.dpmc.gov.au/referendum

7. The Report of the Western Australian Constitutional Committee, Malcolm McCusker Q. C.(chair), January 1995; The South Australian Constitutional Advisory Council, First Report,South Australia and Proposals for an Australian Republic, September 1996 and TheDistribution of power between the three levels of government in Australia, and TheImportance of Education and Consultation in Constitutional Reform, December 1996, (Assoc.Prof. Peter Howell, Chair).

8. See Australian, 27 January 1999 (Olsen); Age, 28 January 1999 (Kennett); Canberra Times,7 February 1999 (Carnell).

9. West Australian, 10 February 1999.

10. Sydney Morning Herald, 18 March 1999.

II. For a representative Liberal monarchist position see R. Kemp 'Facing the ConstitutionalDebate' in K. Aldred, K. Andrews and P. Filing, eds, The Heart of Liberalism, The Alburypapers, 1994, pp. 73-4.

12. M. Gordon, 'A fistful of faith' The Age, 3 April 1999.

13. Tim Fischer, General address, Report of the Constitutional Convention, vol. 3, pp. 247-50;John Anderson, General Address, Report of the Constitutional Convention, vol. 4, pp. 532-5.

14. R. Boswell, 'Constitutional "cage" should remain shut', Australian, 8 January 1999.

15. Australian Labor Party 1998, ALP Platform, pp. 139-40; see also Australian Labor Party1994 Platform, Resolutions and Rules, pp. 58-9.

16. K. Beazley, 'Best Chance for Republic', Sydney Morning Herald, 26 January 1999;K. Beazley, 'Debate must transcend party allegiances', Australian, 26 January 1999; K.Beazley, Address to CEDA, Pathways to the Future: A Labor Vision, Melbourne, 16 March1999.

17. Sydney Morning Herald, 23 Fe)Jruary 1999.

39


18. Senator Stott Despoja, Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999, Second Reading,Senate Hansard, 29 March 1999, pp. 3045-8.

19. A. Murray, 'Impeachable plan is anti-democratic', West Australian, 28 January 1999; 'Offer achoice on republic vote: Senator', West Australian, 13 January; A. Murray, 'A president byplebiscite or none at all', Australian, 30 December 1998.

20. See 'Draft Ballot'; A. Murray, 'The Case for direct election'; and B. Austen, 'A Case againstdirect election', Making Policy, A Supplement to the National Journal of the AustralianDemocrats, February 1999, pp. 2-4.

21. Senator Dee Margetts, 'Greens move to amend referendum bill', Media release, 24 March1999.

22 'Hanson opposed to republic', Canberra Times, 23 July 1998.

23. Canberra Times, 10 March 1999.

40

Appendix 6: YES Community Organisations


Australian Republican Movement (ARM)

The ARM is the main republican organisation. l It was founded on 7 July 1991, hasbranches in each state and territory, and maintains a secretariat in Sydney. It was thelargest organised force at the 1998 Constitutional Convention and elected 27 delegates. Itsnational president is Malcolm Turnbull and its national campaign coordinator is formerNSW Labor Premier, Neville Wran.

The elected ARM delegates were led by media personality Eddie McGuire (Vic), formerLabor Attorney-General Michael Lavarch (Qld), businesswoman Janet Holmes Ii Court(WA), former Liberal Senator Baden Teague (SA), Julian Green (Tas), Anne Witheford(ACT) and Turnbull himself(NSW).

The ARM stands for the minimalist republican model and the Bipartisan Appointment ofthe President Model adopted by the Convention is a modified version of the ARM'spreferred model that it brought to the convention.

Its chairman, Turnbull, has written:

There is only one fundamental issue in the republican debate: how long will Australiaallow the highest office under its constitution, that ofthe monarch, the head-of-state, tobe occupied by the kings and queens ofanother country, the United Kingdom?

The official YES committee includes four ARM members, Turnbull, Wran, Steve Vizardand Janet Holmes Ii Court.3

Conservatives for an Australian Head of State (CAHS)

CARS was formed by the former Federal Secretary of the Liberal Party, Andrew Robb, inJanuary 1999.4 It is a group of 12 leading conservatives, which includes businessmenRobert Champion de Crespigny and Charles Goode and academics and ConstitutionalConvention delegates, Prof Judith Sloan and Prof Greg Craven. The others are formerLiberal MPs, Paul Everingham, Warwick Smith and Michael Yabsley, and Paul Houlihan,Michael Lishman, Deane Russell and Fiona Smith.

Its aim is to persuade conservatives that the minimalist position is a safe model for arepublic, safer than direct election, which Robb says 'would be an unmitigated disaster,.5 Itplans to maintain its independence while working in collaboration with other republicanorgariisations, such as ARM. It has raised some money and aims to share in publicfunding.

On 29 March 1999 the CAHS convenor, Andrew Robb, addressed the National PressClub. He outlined the CAHS position as follows:

41


[it] supports the minimal approach to the republic debate in only changing the head ofstate of Australia. We strongly oppose any attempt to undermine both State autonomyand the long-standing Parliamentary systems and conventions which currently apply. Wesupport the outcome of the Constitutional Convention which appoints an AustralianHead of State with no other changes to the way which we are govemed. We will urge aYES vote at the referendum.6

One of its members, Craven, is on the official YES committee for the pre-referendumcampaign.7 CAHS also has announced a group of Friends who support its position.8 TheFriends include Doug Anthony, the former deputy prime minister and National Partyleader, Don McGauchie, former president of the National Fanners Federation, and RodMcGeoch, chairman of the Committee of Sydney and a former member ofSOCOG.9

'YES' Coalition (YC)

YC is a loose-knit organisation of all republican groups whose first manifestation emergedat the National Convention of Republicans (NCR), held in Canberra on 6-7 February1999.10 The aim ofYC is to present a broad and united front of republicans-non-partisanand from all shades of republican opinion. It includes prominent direct election advocates,who will support the YES case, such as Rev. Tim Costello, ACT Chief Minister KateCarnell, Rev. Dorothy McRae McMahon and Senator Natasha Stott Despoja.11

Following the NCR organised YCs emerged in most states and territories, beginning withthe NSW YC which was launched on 18 February in Sydney.12 These coalitions areusually comprised of a small ARM core plus other high-profile figures. The NSW YEScoalition includes former tennis star, John Newcombe and Constitutional Conventiondelegate, Jason Yat-Sen Li, who was the No 1. Senate candidate for the Unity Party at theOctober 1998 federal election. 13

Smaller Republican Groups

• A Just Republic stands for 'A Just republic, Not just a republic!' Its larger agendaincludes a Bill of Rights, Prior Ownership, a Directly Elected President, and OngoingConstitutional Reform, but on this occasion it supports a YES vote. In the elections for theConstitutional Convention it stood candidates in NSW (including Pat O'Shane andDorothy McRae-McMahon), ACT and NT. 14

• Women for an Australian Republic is a 'virtual' group convened by Sarah Brasch. Itargues for equal representation of women on all committees, short lists, etc. concernedwith the election ofthe president 15

• Youth for an Australian Republic is a national organisation that also emphasiseselectronic communication amongst its members. Previously known as 'YES YOUTH' itsrepresentatives spoke at the National Convention of Republicans. In campaigning for a

42


YES vote its target is young people and its aim is to enliven constitutional debate withslogans such as 'Put the Pub back in Republic'.

• The Campaign for the Popular Election of the Australian President was set up in1995 by the Republican Party of Australia, a tiny party led by Peter Consandine. It'reluctantly' advocates a YES vote and is organising a 'write-on' campaign in which itadvises its supporters to write P.E.P (popularly elected president) on their ballotpapers,16,17

Endnotes

1. For further information see Australian Republican Movement Declaration by Republicans fora YES Vote for Australian Head of State', 25 January 1999; S. Vizard, Two Weeks in Lilliput,Penguin, 1998; M. Turnbull, The Reluctant Republic, William Hienemann Australia, 1993; T.Keneally, Our Republic, William Hienemann Australia, 1993; J. Hirst, A RepublicanManifesto, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1994.

2. 'Addressing the Republic' in D. Headon, et al eds, Crown or Country.

3. Contact: Australian Republican Movementhttp://www.republic.org.au; Email: [email protected] PO Box A870 Sydney SouthNSW 1235FreeCall1800 802000; Facsimile: (02) 9267 8155.

4. Australian, 25 January 1999.

5. ibid.

6. Frank Crews, 'Republic Debate Continues', Media release, National Press club, 8 March1999; A. Robb, Convenor, Conservatives for an Australian Head of State, 'An AustralianHead of State ... a small, yet symbolic step', Address to the National Press Club, 29 March1999.

7. G. Craven, 'No room for two at the top', Australian, 5 February 1999; G. Craven, 'New settingfor timeless jewel', Australian Financial Review, 3 March 1999; G. Craven, 'Safety First', TheAdelaide Review, 186, March 1999.

8. M. Grattan, 'Robb to become republic's 'YES' man', Sydney Morning Herald, 30 March 1999.

9. Contact: Conservatives for an Australian Head of State, GPO Box 3955, Sydney NSW 2001;Telephone (02) 9233 2156; Facsimile: (02) 9371 7820.

10. National Convention of Republicans, A Declaration, Canberra, 7 February 1999.

II. See, for instance, T. Costello, 'Why, with doubts, I back this republic', The Age, 13 January1999.


13. Contact: For the papers from the National Convention of Republicans seehttp://www.act.republic.org.au/ncr/

43


14. Contact: PO Box 3779, Manuka 2603, ACT.Email: [email protected]

15. See www.womenrep.dynamite.com.auContact: Email: [email protected]

16. Campaign for the Popular Election of the Australian President. 'Australian Republic: to be ornot to be?', Summer 1999.

17. Contact National Secretariat: PO Box 843, Castle Hill, NSW, 1765; Ph. 02-9899 5590;Email: [email protected]; see www.hawknet.com.au/-ozrepublic

44

Appendix 7: NO Community Organisations


Australians for Constitutional Monarchy

ACM is the main monarchist organisation.' Its first organisers were Lloyd Waddy, aleading Sydney lawyer, and Michael Kirby, President of the Court of Appeal of theSupreme Court of NSW. It was launched at a public meeting on 2 June 1992. ItsFoundation Charter Council included: Sir Harry Gibbs, former Chief Justice of the HighCourt; Dame Leonie Kramer, Chancellor of Sydney University; Doug Sutherland, former(Labor) Lord Mayor of Sydney; Justice Michael Kirby, President of the NSW Court ofAppeal (now High Court Justice); Sir John Atwill, former Federal president of the LiberalParty; former Senator, Neville Bonner; artist Margaret Olley; NSW MLC Helen Sham-Ho;Margaret Valadian; Gareth Grainger; Stephen Hall; Vahoi Naufahu; and Barry O'KeefeQC.2

It also maintains a secretariat in Sydney and has branches in each state and territory. Itsfirst executive director, in June 1993, was Tony Abbott, now Liberal MHR for Warringah,NSW, and Minister for Employment Services in the Howard government. John Howardhimself spoke at one of ACM's early rallies and has always been a supporter.

It elected 19 delegates to the Constitutional Convention on a 'No Republic-ACM' ticket,including Doug Sutherland, NSW, the Hon. Don Chipp, Vic., the Hon. James Killen,QLD, The Rt Hon Reg Withers, WA, and Kym Bonython, SA. Other leading members,such as Lloyd Waddy and Sir David Smith, former Secretary to the Governor General,were among the appointed delegates.

Its main spokespersons, since March 1994, have been its convener, Lloyd Waddy, and itsexecutive director, Kerry Jones. Waddy withdrew from active campaigning in June 1998,when he was appointed a judge of the Family Court. Jones, Smith and Councillor JulianLeeser are among the members of the official NO committee.

Its position is support for the constitutional monarchy and opposition to an Australianrepublic. The ACM

focuses on the defects in the various models of republics as alternatives to our currentworking system of government; the problems with each of the methods advanced forappointing and dismissing a president, exposing the powers a president would have, andthe dangers inherent in replacing the Governor-General as our non-political Head ofState, which only the Crown can ensure, with a powerful political president,.3

Sir David Smith has been a consistent public advocate of the status quo, debatingAustralian constitutional history (especially in regard to the 1975 constitutional crisis) andtaking issue with Sir Anthony Mason on constitutional matters. He has argued the case, inparticular, for the independent role of the Governor-General as the Australian Head ofState.4,5

45


Real Republicans (RR)

RR is the name appropriated early in 1999 by those direct election republicans committedto supporting the NO case (the name was originally used by the ticket that electedConstitutional Convention delegates Tim Costello and Moira Rayner in Victoria). Now itis the name for an organisation created by Phil Cleary (Victoria), Clem Jones(Queensland) and Ted Mack (NSW) who were among those direct election republicansthat had earlier joined forces as delegates at Constitutional Convention.6 Bill Hayden hasindicated that he will support the RR campaign.7

RR supports various models for direct election of the president. Mack favours a US-stylepresidency, Jones a president with executive powers, and Cleary favours an Irish-stylepresident with only 'cultural, symbolic and moral' authority.8 They argue that defeat of theYES case is necessary to enable the later passage of a referendum for a popularly electedpresident.9

Jones and Mack are members of the committee to run the NO campaign prior to thereferendum. Peter Reith met publicly with Ted Mack to offer his support and has indicatedhis intention to campaign against the referendum in November. 10

Returned Services League (RSL)

The RSL has been the most determined opponent of any move towards a republic. For theLeague, Australian national identity is inseparable from the British connection and themonarchy. As the League's historians have written of its values as imperial loyalists: 'Thelinks with Britain and the symbols of loyalty-monarchy, flag, and anthem-are to bedefended and sustained'. II Consequently one of its standing policies has been 'That anymove to change Australia into a republic be opposed.I2 RSL leaders have consistently putthis position publicly and identified themselves as monarchists. At the ConstitutionalConvention there were three RSL voices, all of them monarchists. There were two pastNational presidents, Major General James, one of the appointed delegates, and BrigadierAlf Garland, an elected member (Australian Monarchist League, Victoria) as well as thepresent Victorian state president, Bruce Ruxton.

Endnotes

1. For further information see G. Grainger and K. Jones, eds, The Australian ConstitutionalMonarchy, 1994; K. Jones, The works: why mess with it?', Australian, 28 January 1999;K. Jones, The ACMHandbook: Key Facts and Opinions for the Republic Debate in Australia,ACM Publishing, 1996; The Australian Constitution: Essential Documents in AustralianConstitutional History to be read in conjunction with the 'ACM Handbook: ACM Publishing,1997; T. Abbott, The Minimal Monarchy: and why it still makes sense for Australia,

46


Wakefield Press, 1995; T. Abbott; How to Win the Constitutional War and give both sideswhat they want; Australians for Constitutional Monarchy and Wakefield Press, 1997.

2. The ACM Handbook,op. cit., pp. 4-5.

3. The ACM Handbook, p. 2.

4. Sir David Smith, 'The head of state', in G. Winterton, ed., We, The People, op. cit., pp. 15265; 'The G-G is not a delegate of the Queen', Letter to the Editor, Canberra Times, 16 January1999; 'An Open Letter to the Attorney-General', Press Release, 5 January 1999.

5. Contact: Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, GPO Box 9841, Sydney, NSW, 2001.Telephone: (02) 9231 2200 or FreeCall: 1800622229. Facsimile: (02) 9231 2359.

6. S. Jackson, 'Rebels in the Ranks', Australian, 16 January 199?

7. C. Dore, 'Hayden will back rebel republic campaign', Australian, 8 January 1999.

8. Australian, 23 January 1999.

9. T. Mack, 'Giving power to the People', Sydney Morning Herald, 24 December 1998; T. Mack,'Undue haste could undermine a unique opportunity', Australian, 27 January 1999; T. Mack,'Democratic ideal transcends minority fascist smear', Australian, 23 February 1999; P. Cleary,'The end of the republic', TheAge, 8 January 1999.

10. L. Wright, 'Reith sticks with directly elected president', Canberra Times, 14 March 1999.

11. P. Sekuless and J. Rees, Lest We Forget: The History ofthe Returned Services League, 19161986, Rigby, 1986, p. 6.

12. Returned Services League RSL Handbook:75th Anniversary Issue 1991, Sydney, 1991, 17.18,p.150.

47

Appendix 8: The YES and NO Campaign Organisations

Appendix 8: The YES and NO Campaign Organisations

The YES campaign committee

The YES Committee, appointed by the government to manage the $7.5 milliongovernment-funded campaign, has announced the appointment of a campaign committee.Its composition, which goes beyond Constitutional Convention delegates is MalcolmTurnbull (chair), Peter Barron, former political adviser to Bob Hawke, and Neville Wran,(deputy chair), Andrew Robb, and Karin Sowada, ARM Constitutional Conventiondelegate and former Australian Democrats senator for NSW. 1

The national campaign director is Greg Barns, who will leave his position as chief of staffofJohn Fahey, the Minister for Finance, from the end of May.2 Public opinion polling willbe the responsibility of Liberal Party pollster, Mark Textor, while the advertisingcampaign is likely to be the responsibility of John Singleton, who has in the past workedon Labor party election campaigns.3

Overall this membership is notably bipartisan and cross-group, but with strong ARMrepresentation. It also represents considerable political expertise drawn from high-levelparticipation in recent national election campaigns.

The NO campaign committee

The NO campaign committee, about which less is known at the time of writing, is chairedby the ACM's Kerry Jones.4 Its campaign director is David Elliott, former press secretaryto former NSW Liberal leader Peter Collins and previously research officer to JohnHoward and Bronwyn Bishop.5

Endnotes

1. Australian Financial Review, 12 April 1999; Sydney Morning Herald, 13 April 1999.

2. Sydney Morning Herald, 13 April 1999.

3. Australian, 30 March 1999; Senator John Faulkner has been critical of Textor's appointmenton the grounds that it was 'inappropriate' for pollsters on either side of party politics to beinvolved, Sydney Morning Herald, 1 April 1999.

4. Sydney Morning Herald, 13 April 1999.

5. M. Grattan, 'Collins staffer for NO vote', Sydney Morning Herald, I April 1999. This reportsuggests that Elliott has been appointed the ACM's national campaign director. Thedistinction between the two is unclear as yet.

49

Appendix 9: Educational Organisations


Constitutional Centenary Foundation (CCF)

The CCF is an independent but (Commonwealth and state) government-sponsoredorganisation committed to public education on constitutional questions.] Founded after aConstitutional Centenary Conference in April 1991 it maintains a secretariat in Melbourneand has close links with Professor Cheryl Saunders' Centre for Comparative ConstitutionalStudies at Melbourne University. Saunders is deputy chair and the driving force. CCF'scurrent chair is the ABC chair, Donald McDonald, who replaced Sir Ninian Stephen earlyin 1998.

The CCF is strictly neutral and non-partisan. It produces educational materials, such as anannotated constitution,2 and conducts public forums and historical re-enactments. Itpioneered the idea of modern constitutional conventions. As well as floating the idea of apeople's convention, prior to its adoption by the Liberal Party, it has sponsored andconducted schools conventions for a number of years and local constitutional conventionsaround Australia in 1997-98.

In 1998 it conducted a competition to design a new Preamble, and launched its ideas at theNational Press Club on 24 February 1999.3 The CCF's report was later presented to thePrime Minister.4

Issues Deliberation Australia (IDA)

IDA is an organisation, established to facilitate public consultation and debate about majorpolitical issues, that will conduct a Deliberative Poll on the referendum issue in Canberraon 22-24 October. It was founded by Dr Pam Ryan, an Adelaide academic with over 13years experience working at the University of Texas with Dr James Fishkin, the originatorof the idea of deliberative polling.

This event, Australia Deliberates: A Republic. Yes or No?, will involve a random sampleof about 300 Australian citizens who will spend a weekend discussing the issues witheach other, experts and political leaders. Their opinions will be surveyed before and afterto see what impact the discussion has had. The event has the support of both the YES andNO organisations, will be televised by the ABC, and is also supported by The Australiannewspaper and the Australian National University.5,6

Endnotes

1. J. Warhurst, 'The Constitutional Centenary Foundation and the politics of constitutionalreform', Australian Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 3, Spring 1995, pp. 40-51.

51


2. The Australian Constitution, Annotated text by Cheryl Saunders, Constitutional CentenaryFoundation, Melbourne, 1997.

3. Constitutional Centenary Foundation, 'We the people of Australia '" Ideas for a newpreamble to the Australian Constitution', CCF, February 1999.

4. Contact: Constitutional Centenary Foundation, Level 2-723 Swanston St, Carlton, Victoria;3053, Telephone: (03)-9349 1846 Facsimile: (03) 9349 1779Email: [email protected] Site: http://www.centenary.org.au

5. Issues Deliberation Australia, News Conference, NSW Parliament House Press Gallery,2 May 1999; M. Steketee 'Educated guests welcome the debate', Australian, 3 May 1999;G. Greene, 'Forum may point way to a republic', Age, 4 May 1999.

6. Contact: Pam Ryan: Ph: 08 8295 6112/0414295611; Email: [email protected] Deliberation Australia, 28 South Esplanade, P.O. Box 19, Glenelg, SA, 5045.

52

Appendix 10: Some Additional Public Figures


There have been a number of important contributions to the debate from persons notaligned to a particular community organisation. They include:

• Professor Alan Atkinson, of the Department of History at the University ofNew England,is the author of The Muddle-Headed Republic (1993), which stresses the distinctiveAustralian character of the monarchy.l

• Dr Mark McKenna, .author of The Captive Republic (1996), has been a significantadvocate of the YES case in newspaper articles and public addresses.2 He has contributedto the debate about the Preamble and his contribution was one of those chosen by theCCF's Preamble Quest? He is a member of the Political Science Program at the ResearchSchool ofSocial Sciences, Australian National University.

• Sir Anthony Mason, formerly Chief Justice of the High Court, joined with McKenna andfour leading legal scholars to propose to the Attorney-General a model for the publicnomination process.4 He is a Visiting National Fellow at the Law School, AustralianNational University.

• Mr Les Murray, the distinguished poet, was asked by the Prime Minister to assist him indrafting the preamble. Murray has long been a republican and was a contributor toG. Dutton ed, An Australian Republic? (1977).5

• Dr Jocelynne Scutt, feminist barrister, is a direct election republican who has not joinedthe Real Republicans. Rather, under the banner of Real Republicans, she advocateswriting 'YES to a directly elected president' on the ballot paper.6

• Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair, former Speaker of the House of Representatives and former Leaderof the National Party, has spoken in favour of the republic.7 He subsequently agreed tochair the National Convention ofRepublicans in February 1999.

• Mr David Solomon, political and legal commentator, has advocated a directly elected, USstyle president for almost twenty-five years, since he wrote Elect the Governor-General!8

• Professor George Winterton, Professor of Law at the University ofNew South Wales, wasan appointed delegate to Constitutional Convention. He is the author of the classic text onAustralian republican government, Monarchy to Republic: Australian RepublicanGovernment (1986).9

Endnotes

1. Oxford University Press, 1993.

53


2. E. G. M. McKenna, 'How the PM hijacked the soul of the republic', The Age, 11 March 1999;'Rhetoric obscures wisdom ofbipartisan model', Australian, 20 January 1999.

3. CCF, 'We the people of Australia', p. 15.

4. M. McKenna, Sir Anthony Mason, A. Stone, G. Williams, J. Williams and G. Winterton,'President must be the people's choice', Australian, 16 December 1998; M. McKenna, 'Pickinga chief: chapter and verse', Canberra Times, 26 December 1998.

5. L. Murray, 'The Flag Rave', in G. Dutton, ed., Republican Australia?, op. cit., pp. 106-19.

6. S. Powell, 'Ms Republic', Australian, 10 March 1999.

7. 'Sinclair prods PM over the Republic', Sydney Morning Herald, 24 December 1998.

8. D. Solomon, Elect the Governor-General!, Nelson, 1976; Coming of Age, University ofQueensland Press, 1998.

9. Oxford University Press, 1986; Reprinted with a new introduction, Oxford University Press,1994.

54

,

From Constitutional Convention to Republic …...From Constitutional Convention to Republic...

Documents

Transcript of From Constitutional Convention to Republic …...From Constitutional Convention to Republic...