Since the early 1990s opinion polls had suggested that a majority of the electorate favoured a republic in principle.[3] Nonetheless, the republic referendum was defeated.
The 1998 Australian Constitutional Convention debated the need for a change to the Constitution of Australia which would abolish the Australian monarchy.[5] The convention considered three categories of model for the selection of the head of state in an Australian republic: direct election, parliamentary election by a special majority, and appointment by a special council following prime ministerial nomination.
"In principle" agreement was reached by a majority of delegates for an Australian republic model (though a minority bloc of monarchists dissented). Additionally, delegates endorsed a republic under a bipartisan appointment model as preferable to the existing constitutional arrangements (monarchists and some radical-change republicans abstained from the vote).[6] The Convention also recommended to the prime minister and parliament that a referendum to implement the constitutional changes required for this model be held in 1999.[5]
The majority of analysis has advanced two main reasons for the referendum defeat:
First, Australians have traditionally been cautious about proposed constitutional change. Beginning in 1906, only eight of 45 proposals put to a referendum,[7] have been approved by the constitutionally required double majority– that is, (1) a majority in each of a majority of the six states and (2) a majority nationally.[8] As Sir Robert Menzies explained following his failure to pass a referendum to ban the communist party, "to get an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is one of the labours of Hercules".[9][10]
Second, public opinion varied widely on the issue, and was not a simple positive or negative reaction. The major opinion groups were:[citation needed]
Traditional monarchists who held their beliefs largely on principled and/or sentimental attachment to the monarchy, in part based on traditional associations with the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth of Nations and a personal identification with Queen Elizabeth II and her family. Many were older or from rural rather than urban areas.
Pragmatic monarchists who maintained that, whatever the alleged or actual weaknesses of the current system, it also had many alleged or actual strengths. The view of this group was that constitutional monarchy provides the basis for stable democratic government, with the Governor-General (the monarch's nominal representative) acting as an impartial, non-political umpire of the political process. Many distrusted the Australian political classes and believed the provision of executive powers to a local politician would result in an undesirably partisan head of state, instability, dictatorship, or a possible repeat of the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis.
Minimal change republicans who aimed to remove the monarchy, but otherwise maintain the current system as unchanged as possible, thus creating a parliamentary republic. Within this group, there were a small group of supporters of the ultra-minimalist McGarvie Model, but generally the favoured model of these groups was appointment by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of Parliament.
Progressive republicans who wanted a popularly elected head of state.
Radical republicans who saw the minimal change option as purely cosmetic, and desired comprehensive revision to the current Westminster-based system and possibly the implementation of a presidential or semi-presidential system. This was easily the smallest major group, but prominent in the debate.
Tactical voters who took a long-term view and voted against their inclinations to avoid more radical changes in the future. Some traditional and pragmatic monarchists perceived a weight of inevitability and voted "yes" to the minimalist republic to avoid a more radical republic. Some sentimental republicans voted "no" in the hope of a more radical or populist proposal winning a future referendum.
The uncommitted. As in all elections, a proportion of the electorate remained unattached to either side. Uncommitted swinging voters can be a decisive force in shaping election and referendum results, especially as Australia has compulsory voting.
The process for change is seen as an important factor for the eventual outcome in a referendum.[11] There were several other proposals for selecting a president:
The "Yes" campaign was headed by Malcolm Turnbull. It was divided in detail but nevertheless managed to present a fairly united and coherent message and was notable for unlikely alliances between traditional opponents—for example, former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser gave joint statements. Many other prominent Australians also endorsed the "Yes" vote, which led to claims that the movement was "elitist" in sentiment and supported by politicians rather than the public at large. Viewing the case for a republic as fairly self-evident and broadly supported by the Australian populace, their advertising concentrated mainly on the positive symbolism of the republican case. The "Yes" campaign was also viewed as having the support of the popular Australian media by British politician and journalist Bill Deedes who said in The Daily Telegraph in 1999: "I have rarely attended elections in any country, certainly not a democratic one, in which the newspapers have displayed more shameless bias. One and all, they determined that Australians should have a republic and they used every device towards that end."[12][bettersourceneeded]
The organised "No" campaign was a mixture of monarchist groups. Additionally it included some republican groups who did not feel that the proposed model was satisfactory; in particular, they thought that the people should elect the president. Headed by Kerry Jones, the "No" campaign concentrated on the perceived flaws of the model on offer, claiming that those who supported the "Yes" push were "elites" (although many leading figures on the monarchist side also had "elite" backgrounds), and skillfully managing to appeal both to those apprehensive about the change and to those feeling that the model did not go far enough. Their advertising emphasised voting "No" to "this republic", implying to direct-election supporters that a model more to their preferences was likely to be put in the future.
The common elements within the "No" campaign were the view that the model proposed was undemocratic and would lead to a "politician's republic", playing to a general distrust of politicians. "No" campaigners called for further consultation, while remaining non-specific on what steps were needed to ensure this.
The model with an appointed head of state was the one endorsed by the Constitutional Convention and put forward at the referendum. It was broadly supported by both minimalist and establishment republicans, including almost all Labor and some conservative politicians.[13] Progressive republicans in the general community opposed the indirect elected model urging people to vote against the referendum. It was opposed by monarchists of both kinds.
Voting at the convention was recorded in Hansard.[6] Hansard shows that 73 delegates voted in favour, 57 against and 22 abstained. Not one constitutional monarchist delegate voted in favour. The policy of ACM and other monarchist groups was to oppose all republican models, including the minimalist McGarvie model. Some conservatives argued that this would be the easiest model to defeat in a referendum and therefore should be supported at the convention. Had the monarchists followed this advice, the McGarvie model would have prevailed at the convention. A number of republicans who supported direct election abstained from the vote (such as Ted Mack, Phil Cleary, Clem Jones and Andrew Gunter), thereby allowing the bi-partisan model to succeed. They reasoned that the model would be defeated at a referendum, and then a second referendum called with direct election as the model.[14]
Although the motion was passed by ignoring those who abstained, the referendum model did not enjoy the support of the majority of delegates, a condition which the Prime Minister had indicated for a referendum. Because the model was overwhelmingly supported by the republican delegates, the Prime Minister decided[6] to put that model to the referendum, a decision acclaimed by the ARM delegates and the media.[13]
Questions
Republic question
Electors were asked whether they approved of:
A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Preamble question
Electors were also asked to vote on a second question at the 1999 referendum which asked whether they approved of:
A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble
The preamble would have been:
With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good.
We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:
proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;
never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;
upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;
honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation’s first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;
recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;
mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;
supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;
and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.
Results
Section 128 of the Constitution requires a "double majority" in a referendum to approve a constitutional amendment—a majority of votes in each of a majority of the states (i.e. at least four of the six), and a majority of all the electors voting.[8] Voters in the territories count only towards the second of those majorities.
11,785,000 votes were cast, representing a voter turnout of 95.10%. Of these, approximately 101,189 (0.86%) were informal.[1]
Obtained a majority in no state and an overall minority of 2,489,435 votes.Not carried
Analysis of results
Both propositions failed on both of the voting requirements. There was no majority for "Yes" in any state, where the "Yes" vote for the republic ranged from 37.44% in Queensland to 49.84% in Victoria, and for the preamble ranged from 32.81% in Queensland to 42.46% in Victoria. Overall, 54.87% voted "No" to the republic, and 60.66% to the preamble.[1]
The highest "Yes" votes for the republic came from inner metropolitan areas. Of Australia's 148 divisions, 42 voted "Yes", with Melbourne (70.92%), Sydney (67.85%), Melbourne Ports (65.90%), Grayndler (64.77%) and Fraser (64.46%) registering the highest "Yes" votes at division level.[16]Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart voted in favour of the proposition for Australia to become a republic, in contrast to "No" votes in Adelaide, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Perth, Newcastle and Townsville.[16] Votes in opposition to the proposal came predominantly from rural and remote divisions, as well as many outer suburban areas.[16] The four divisions recording the highest "No" vote were in Queensland: Maranoa 77.16%, Blair 74.64%, Wide Bay 74.33% and Groom 72.58%. Gwydir in rural New South Wales recorded the fifth-highest vote against the republic, with 72.21%.
Aftermath
As I said at the time, I respect and accept the outcome of the referendum. In the light of the result last November, I shall continue faithfully to serve as Queen of Australia under the Constitution to the very best of my ability, as I have tried to do for these past forty-eight years. It is my duty to seek to remain true to the interests of Australia and all Australians as we enter the twenty-first century.[17]
With republican models of one form or another winning a majority in opinion polls prior to the referendum, it was expected that the republic referendum would pass.[18] However, the question put was for a particular model of republic with a head of state appointed by Parliament. This was opposed by some supporters of a republic, who preferred a directly elected head of state. Some of these, such as Phil Cleary, advocated that republic supporters vote "No" in order that a future referendum could be put on the directly elected model. Some commentators—including the president of the Australian Republican Movement, Malcolm Turnbull—identified this split within the republican camp as a key reason for the referendum's failure.[19][13][20]
After the referendum, Malcolm Turnbull blamed Prime Minister John Howard in particular for the defeat and claimed: "Whatever else he achieves, history will remember him for only one thing. He was the Prime Minister who broke a nation's heart."[21] Meanwhile, the leader of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Kerry Jones, called for citizens to accept the result and go forward "as a united nation".[22] Later in 2006, Turnbull stated that the ARM had ultimately made the right choices, but that the referendum failed because Australians did not support indirect election and it would have been irresponsible for the ARM to have supported a direct election model.[23] Despite the hopes of more radical republicans such as Phil Cleary, the referendum defeat was generally viewed as a setback for the republican cause and calls for another referendum were ignored by the Howard government.
High Court Justice Michael Kirby, a constitutional monarchist, ascribed the failure of the republic referendum to ten factors: lack of bi-partisanship; undue haste; a perception that the republic was supported by big city elites; a "denigration" of monarchists as "unpatriotic" by republicans; the adoption of an inflexible republican model by the convention; concerns about the specific model proposed (chiefly the ease with which a prime minister could dismiss a president); a republican strategy of using big "names" attached to the Whitlam era to promote their cause; strong opposition to the proposal in the smaller states; a counter-productive pro-republican bias in the media; and an instinctive caution among the Australian electorate regarding constitutional change.[4]
The Gillard Labor government, which took power in a hung parliament following the August 2010 election, indicated an intention not to revisit the issue of a vote for an Australian republic during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.[24] The Liberal-National Coalition government in power following the September 2013 federal election was led by Tony Abbott who is a supporter of the constitutional monarchy. During Abbott's term as prime minister, Labor Opposition Leader Bill Shorten stated he believed it was time to "breathe new life into the dream of an Australian republic".[25]
On 15 September 2015, Malcolm Turnbull, who had been chairman of the Australian Republican Movement from 1993 until 2000, succeeded Tony Abbott as leader of the Liberal Party, to become the prime minister of Australia. For the first time, the prime minister and the federal Opposition Leader, as well as the eight state and territory premiers and chief ministers, were all self-declared republicans. Turnbull has stated that he believes Australia should become a republic after the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.[26] Turnbull was later succeeded, on 24 August 2018, by Scott Morrison, who subsequently declared himself a constitutional monarchist, and re-hung a portrait of the Queen in the Prime Minister's office, which Turnbull had removed.[27]Anthony Albanese, who was sworn in as prime minister in May 2022, is a convinced republican, going as far to appoint an Assistant Minister for the Republic. However, with the death of Queen Elizabeth II in September 2022, Albanese announced that he would not organise a referendum during his first term in office, out of respect for the late Queen Elizabeth II.[28] The Assistant Minister for the Republic position was not retained in the 2024 Cabinet reshuffle.
Republicanism in Australia is a movement to change Australia's system of government from a constitutional monarchy to a republic; presumably, a form of parliamentary republic that would replace the monarch of Australia with a non-royal Australian head of state. It is opposed to monarchism in Australia. Republicanism was first espoused in Australia before Federation in 1901. After a period of decline following Federation, the movement again became prominent at the end of the 20th century after successive legal and socio-cultural changes loosened Australia's ties with the United Kingdom.
The Republic Advisory Committee was a committee established by the then Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating in April 1993 to examine the constitutional and legal issues that would arise were Australia to become a republic. The committee's mandate was to "prepare an options paper describing 'the minimum constitutional changes necessary to achieve a viable Federal Republic of Australia, maintaining the effect of our current conventions and principles of government'." The committee was asked to consider issues such as
The abolition of monarchy is a legislative or revolutionary movement to abolish monarchical elements in government, usually hereditary. The abolition of an absolute monarchy in favour of limited government under a constitutional monarchy is a less radical form of anti-monarchism that has succeeded in some nations that still retain monarchs, such as Sweden, Spain, and Thailand.
Constitutional conventions in Australia are significant meetings that have debated the Australian Constitution. The first two gatherings debated Federation and what form of Constitution to adopt, while the following conventions debated amendments to the document.
The Australian Republic Movement (ARM) is a non-partisan organisation campaigning for Australia to become a republic. The ARM and its supporters have promoted various models, including a parliamentary republic, and the organisation has branches active in all states and territories.
The McGarvie model is a proposition for change to the Australian Constitution to remove references to the monarchy and establish a republic. It is also known as the Australian Democracy Model.
Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM) is a group that aims to preserve Australia's current constitutional monarchy, with Charles III as King of Australia. The group states that it is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organisation whose role is "To preserve, to protect and to defend our heritage: the Australian constitutional system, the role of the Crown in it and our Flag".
New Zealand Republic Inc. is an organisation formed in 1994 whose object is to support the creation of a New Zealand republic.
Republicanism in New Zealand is the political position that New Zealand's system of government should be changed from a constitutional monarchy to a republic.
The Australian Monarchist League (AML) is an voluntary association that promotes and advocates for the retention of Australia's constitutional monarchy.The organisation advocated for a "no" vote in the unsuccessful 1999 republic referendum, which asked whether the Australian Constitution should be amended to make Australia a republic.
The Bi-partisan appointment republican model was a proposal for Australian constitutional reform. If approved at referendum, the model would have established Australia as a republic with a Head of State appointed by the Australian Federal Parliament. The model was put to the people at the November 1999 republican referendum and was defeated by 54.4% of voters.
A direct election republican model is a proposal for Australian constitutional reform. If a proposal of this type were approved at a referendum, it would establish Australia as a republic with a head of state chosen directly by the Australian electorate.
A process model is, in the context of the republic debate in Australia, a model for the process by which the questions surrounding whether and how Australia should become a republic may be answered. A number of process models have been processed. Proposed process models are a subject of debate within the Republicanism movement. Such debate usually surrounds whether the people should be asked to choose between the current system and a general republican system of government, one specific republican system of government, or multiple alternative republican systems of government.
Australia is a constitutional monarchy whose Sovereign also serves as Monarch of the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and eleven other former dependencies of the United Kingdom including Papua New Guinea, which was formerly a dependency of Australia. These countries operate as independent nations, and are known as Commonwealth realms. The history of the Australian monarchy has involved a shifting relationship with both the monarch and also the British government.
The Constitution of Australia is the fundamental law that governs the political structure of Australia. It is a written constitution, that establishes the country as a federation under a constitutional monarchy governed with a parliamentary system. Its eight chapters sets down the structure and powers of the three constituent parts of the federal level of government: the Parliament, the Executive Government and the Judicature.
The Australian head of state dispute is a debate as to who is considered to be the head of state of Australia—the monarch, the governor-general, or both. Both are described in official sources as "head of state" but the Australian constitution does not mention the term. A number of writers, most notably Sir David Smith, have argued that the term is better used to describe the governor-general. The difference of opinion has mainly been discussed in the context of Australia becoming a republic, and was prominently debated in the lead-up to the republic referendum in 1999.
The 1998 Australian Constitutional Convention, also known as the Con Con, was a constitutional convention which gathered at Old Parliament House, Canberra from 2 to 13 February 1998. It was called by the Howard government to discuss whether Australia should become a republic and if so, under which constitutional model. The Convention concluded that:
Republicanism in Jamaica is a position which advocates that Jamaica's system of government be changed from a constitutional monarchy to a republic. Both major political parties – the Jamaica Labour Party and the People's National Party – subscribe to the position, and the current Prime Minister of Jamaica, Andrew Holness, has announced that transitioning to a republic will be a priority of his government. In June 2022, the Jamaican government announced its intention that Jamaica become a republic by the time of the next general election in 2025. The process will include a two-thirds majority vote in parliament along with a referendum.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, also known as the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, the First Nations Voice or simply the Voice, was a proposed Australian federal advisory body to comprise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, intended to represent the views of Indigenous communities. The Voice as proposed by the Albanese government would have had the power to make representations to the Parliament of Australia and executive government on matters relating to Indigenous Australians. The specific form of the Voice was to be determined by legislation passed by Parliament had the referendum succeeded.
The president of Barbados is the head of state of Barbados and the commander-in-chief of the Barbados Defence Force. The office was established when the country became a parliamentary republic on 30 November 2021. Prior to that date, the head of state was Elizabeth II, Queen of Barbados, who was represented on the island by a governor-general. The final person to hold that position, Sandra Mason, is currently serving as Barbados' first president.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
Australiaportal 
