An Australian Republic

What is a republic?

What do people mean when they talk about Australia becoming a republic? At the 1998 Constitutional Convention, the Prime Minister said, “I oppose Australia becoming a republic”. The Leader of the Opposition said, “Our nation is a republic in all but name”. And a number of other speakers said Australia is already a republic. These conflicting statements can be understood by considering the different meanings of the term “republic”. According to the Webster dictionary, there are two relevant definitions:

  1. The first definition of a republic is, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. A nation that has such a political order.”

    By this measure Australia is, undeniably, already a republic. Writing in 1867, Walter Bagehot described the Westminster system of government as “disguised republicanism”. While the symbols of monarchy had been preserved, the substance of executive government had been republicanised through the practices of representative and responsible government.

    More recently, the High Court of Australia has determined that, in our system of Government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people (cf. Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1 at para 17 per Deane and Toohey JJ; Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106 at para 37 per Mason CJ; Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 104 at para 13 per Deane J).

  2. However, the Webster dictionary also defines a republic as, “A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. A nation that has such a political order.”

    By this measure, Australia is not a republic. Australia, like the United Kingdom, is a constitutional monarchy with a monarch as its head of State. In 1901, Australia was constituted as a Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That single Crown was subsequently divided and evolved, and now at law the Queen in Australia is known as the Queen of Australia. Our legal and governmental systems are based on the proposition that Australia is a monarchy. The Queen is a part of the Parliament and the source of executive power. Justice is administered in the law courts in the name of the Queen. Our Parliamentarians swear allegiance to the Queen and defence forces swear to serve the Queen.

    Although, the Prime Minister is called the head of government, the legal power of executive government is actually vested in the Queen under section 61 of the Australian Constitution. We can only describe the Prime Minister as the head of government because, under the Westminster conventions of responsible government, the Queen (and her representative the Governor-General) only exercise their powers with, and in accord with, the advice of the Prime Minister and the other Ministers of State. Nevertheless, legally and formally, the Queen sits at the pinnacle of Australia’s constitutional arrangements.

From these two definitions of a republic we can see that those people calling for an Australian republic are only concerned about the identity of our head of State: i.e. the second definition above. Australian republicanism is concerned with replacing the hereditary monarch and her representative, the Governor-General, with a nominated or elected head of State (however that position might be titled). They are seking to remove the monarchical forms and symbols from our already republican system of government. In the language of Bagehot, Australian republicanism seeks to remove the disguise.

Australian republicanism is not about instituting representative parliamentary democracy nor responsible cabinet government. Australia had these before federation in 1901. Nor is Australian republicanism about achieving independence or sovereignty for the Australian nation; both have been long achieved.

The debate

Key arguments for an Australian republic

The key argument in support of an Australia republic is the importance of appropriate national symbolism compared with the symbolic failure of the current arrangements:

  • The symbolism of Australia sharing its legal head of state with a number of other nations is no longer appropriate. The British monarch is the head of State of some 15 nations.
  • The notions of hereditary, primogeniture, sexual discrimination and religious discrimination inherent in the succession of the throne have no place in Australia’s democratic and egalitarian society.
  • The monarchy in not an Australian institution and its retention is inconsistent with our status as a sovereign and independent nation. The Queen’s successor will be chosen under the laws of the United Kingdom and not the laws of Australia.
  • The British monarchy is irrelevant to most Australians and can longer sustain national pride nor embody our national identity:
    • Most Australians are now embarrassed by Prime Minister Menzies’ 1954 statement about the Queen, “I did but see her passing by, and yet I love her till I die”.
    • They find it awkward when Parliamentarians are required to swear their true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.
    • It is bizarre when foreign dignitaries toast the “Queen of Australia”. This is especially so with other Commonwealth Countries. It is not unusual for us to toast (for example) the “Queen of New Zealand”, and for them to respond with a toast to same person but styled as the “Queen of Australia”.
    • Australians were horrified at the thought of the British monarch opening the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games as our head of State. The government ensured that the Queen was not invited so that the incongruity of her opening the Games does not arise. (Fortunately, the 14 other nations, to whom the Queen is the head of State, did not consider this a slight on their head of State).
  • In opinion polls, it is evident that most Australians would prefer an Australian head of State to the monarchy.

Key arguments against an Australian republic

The key argument against an Australia republic is conservatism:

  • Our current system of government works well and has done so for more than 100 years; so, as the saying goes, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
  • Technically, it is difficult, if not impossible, to change the Constitution without, at least subtly, changing the existing balance of power between the Prime Minister and the head of State; and between the Senate and the government. Opponents to a republic argue that any change, however minor, to these power balances would be detrimental to our system of government. More broadly, they argue that the risks of Constitutional change, however small, are not worth the benefits of symbolic change. (This a really a more sophisticated form of the argument: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it).
  • The Queen represents a sentimental and historical link with mother England which it would be disappointing to break.
  • The monarch has served Australia well: providing leadership above politics, with great integrity and dedication to duty; and as a personal living symbol.
  • A constitutional monarchy is tried and proven system of government: some of the most politically stable nations in the world are constitutional monarchies; whereas some of the most unstable and repressive regimes have been republics.
  • Some argue there is no (symbolic) need to have an Australian President because: the Queen’s role in our constitutional arrangements is negligible; the Governor-General is already our de facto head of State; and since 1965 we have Australianised the Office of the Governor-General.

The November 1999 Referendum

Following the report of the then government’s Republic Advisory Committee in 1993, in 1995 the then Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, made a commitment to put to referendum a proposal to enable Australia to become a republic by the year 2001. The Coalition parties responded with a promise to hold a peoples convention, and should a clear view be expressed at that convention, to put that model to referendum. The 1996 election saw a change of government.

The Constitutional Convention was held in February 1998. Although declared carried, only 77 of the 152 delegates (less than half) voted in favour of the resolution, “That this Convention supports the adoption of a republican system of government on the Bipartisan Appointment of the President model in preference to there being no change to the Constitution”. There were 57 votes against and 22 abstentions.

Although there is some disagreement as to whether a clear view was expressed by the Convention, the government put the Bipartisan Appointment Model to a national referendum on 6 November 1999. At the referendum, voters were asked to consider two questions that were presented on separate ballot papers:

  1. Do you approve the proposed law to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the Members of the Commonwealth Parliament?
  2. Do you approve the proposed law to alter the Constitution to insert a preamble?

The two proposed laws were the:

  1. Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999, which would have provided for
    • a President as head of state;
    • the mechanism for selecting a President, including a committee to receive and consider nominations;
    • the powers of the President;
    • the term of office and power for removal of the President;
    • the removal of monarchical references from the Constitution; and
    • transitional arrangements; and
  2. Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999, which would have provided for the insertion of a preamble into the Australian Constitution. (The existing preamble, which is contained in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), rather than in the Australian Constitution itself, would remain intact).

Both questions were lost at referendum. The republic question got 45.1% of the national vote, without a majority in any state. The preamble question got 39.3% of the national vote, again without a majority in any state.

If the first referendum question had resulted in the establishment of a republic, the Commonwealth Parliament would have enacted the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999, which provides in more detail for the establishment of a committee to invite and consider public nominations for a President. As this Bill would not alter the Constitution it did not have to be approved at referendum.

Diagnosis

For some years now, opinion polls have continually demonstrated that a majority of Australians want a republic. However, there are factors that worked against the 1999 referendum:

  • Not all republicans supported the proposed Bipartisan Appointment Model.
  • Furthermore, republicans who wanted a President selected on the basis of a direct election, argued that if the Bipartisan Appointment Model was unsuccessful it is only a matter of time before there will be another republican referendum, given the sway of pro-republican public opinion. One which might be closer to their preferred model.
  • The Prime Minister’s personal opposition to the republic was a powerful force for retaining the status quo.
  • The advocates for a no case had the easier job of running a scare campaign.

Want to find out more?

See also …