Ten years after the referendum, we are no closer to a republic

The Australian ^ | October 31, 2009 | Mike Steketee

[myknowledge]

TEN years ago republican campaigner Phil Cleary celebrated a glorious referendum defeat by saying that "very soon" Australians would have the republic they wanted.

Cleary's Real Republic group and other supporters of direct election had thrown in their lot with the monarchists to campaign for the rejection of a republic with a president appointed by parliament, a decision that helped turn a monarchist minority into a majority of rejectionists.

Their strategy, as Cleary explained, was that, following the failure of the referendum, "I'm of the view that the momentum will build immediately" for the republic that people wanted, namely one in which they would vote for a president.

So much for that idea. Next Friday, the 10th anniversary of the referendum and the day after John Howard delivers a speech to a monarchist audience on "the crowned republic", what's left of the Australian Republican Movement will try to drum up media attention with a commemoration based on the theme"10 years: time to mend the nation's broken heart".

[myknowledge]

I am supporting my home country Australia becoming a republic, a federal republic, retaining the parliamentary system of government, merely replacing the Queen and Governor-General with an elected President, sort of like the republics of Ireland, Germany, Italy and Israel.

The only reason why the referendum failed back on November 6, 1999, was NOT because they opposed a republic, but by the METHOD of electing the president.

We would most likely favor a direct election of the President by the people at presidential elections every say, four years, and only one four year term for the president, that's it.

For republic advocates of Australia, what do you think?

Federal Republic of Australia ping.

[odds]

Australia will become a Federal Republic in time. Effectively, Australia is its own boss. The Queen has been a figurehead for long time anyway; she is ok and always welcomed here as should be.

I would support an Australian Head of State and a Federal Parliamentary Republic for Australia.

I really cringed when Bill Clinton arrived in Australia in the 90’s and said he would raise a toast to “the Queen of Australia”. lol

As an example, I don’t recall “the Queen of Australia” pitching for Sydney 2000 summer Olympics games against Manchester, UK.

[naturalman1975]

I'm a consitutional monarchist. For a few reasons. The first one is I don't believe you get rid of a system that have given you stable government for a century lightly, and certainly not for some purely symbolic reason.

Replacing the Queen and Governor-General with an elected President would not do this. For me, the main test is to look at November 1975 - would a politically elected President have been willing and able to do what the Governor-General did? If he was of the same party as the Prime Minister, he would have been more like to consider party politics than the Constitution. If he was of a different party than the Prime Minister the decision to dismiss in the face of political pressure from an Opposition Leader of his own party would make the decision highly suspect.

Is it possible there's a model that can adequately address this? Yes. But I haven't seen it yet. The closest I've seen is the model presented at the 1999 Referendum and that did not succeed.

Personally I think a major strength of our system is having an executive that is outside of normal politics - and so I personally would never support a directly elected President. I don't want the final state of this country to be determined by somebody who is looking solely at opinion polls.

I honestly don't think we're ever likely to get a referendum presented to the people that gets fifty percent support in fifty percent of the states. The direct election model wouldn't have got it in 1999 (it would have probably got an overall majority, but would have been rejected by a majority of states (WA, SA, Queensland, and Tasmania - and even in NSW, it would have been borderline). For a referendum to succeed, republicans need to find a specific model with majority support, not just the basic idea.

For me, there's also an added factor. When I joined the Defence Force, I swore an oath to be faithful and to bear true allegiance to my Queen. I do not swear oaths I do not intend to keep. Asking me to support a republic is asking me to break an oath and I'll never do that. If a republic comes, I can live with it under my oath ("her heirs and successors according to law"), but I won't be part of it.

I have the honour to be friends with a couple of members of the royal family, including the Prince of Wales. I would genuinely rather have him as my Head of State than just about any Australian politician I've ever encountered and I think he'd be more dedicated to doing his duty than any of them. I don't mind a few of the Governors-General we've had, but they would never have been elected.

And I certainly didn't cringe when President Clinton made a toast to the Queen of Australia. That was simply protocol, and there's a lot of things in protocol that are just plain silly nowadays.

Her Majesty, by the way, didn't pitch for Manchester in 2000 either. She deliberately doesn't do that. She takes her role as Head of the Commonwealth very seriously indeed and does her best to avoid such issues of conflict.

[odds]

I fully understand all you say.

I also believe that Australia is very much on the road to reaching a stage of maturity. Actually, I think we are already there.

To me, it is not simply about a political system or party, but about reaching a stage of political, cultural and social maturity. We will and must become fully independent at some stage, must have the ability to decide, discern, and fend for ourselves if and when needed. But not necessarily lose original heritage or ties. This will be part of our maturity too; that is part of a process of change if we choose.

How long should we be protected from potential harm by a protective figure whose first priority is a different land to ours as much as we are loved and feel part of that original figure and land?

I understand the protocol, although, when a King, Prime Minister or a President of another country officially visits Australia, my personal preference is that I would very much rather have them pay full respects first and foremost to an “Australian” Head of State.

I do not think that an Australian Republic should mean not having close ties with Britain or the Commonwealth. And, I do think that the Constitution and details need to be carefully determined and agreed to by all Australians.

On the other hand, if we were asked to have a Referendum tomorrow regarding this issue, and if voting was not to be compulsory, I have my doubts as to how many would care to vote at all. At present, we are just fine. The Queen is seen, I dare say, as a figurehead here. There is no urgency, but we need to consider future possibilities.

Agreed, Her Majesty does not interfere in politics or otherwise in Australia. At the end of the day Australia is Australia in 2009, not Britain. But the point is that given the choice between Australia and Britain at an event such as Sydney 2000 Olympics we, Australians, pitched for Australia, not the Queen or Britain.