Republic Referendum
(6/11/99)
Overview
On Saturday 6 November 1999, Australians voted against a package of constitutional amendments which would have changed Australia from a constitutional monarchy, into a republic. The proposition was defeated nationally by a margin of 55% to 45%, with the "No" side winning in every state and in all electorates outside of metropolitan areas.
Commentators have mainly attributed the defeat of this republic proposal to the "elitist" design of the particular model which would have involved a President being nominated by the Prime Minister and ratified by parliament.
Opinion polls have only recorded slight "in principle" support for a republic since the mid 1990s. However certain kinds of republic designs have not been favourably received by the general public. Polls in Australia have consistently shown that the electorate would prefer a directly elected Presidency, ahead of any other republic model.
Origins of the Debate
The defeat of this model is a big setback for the left-wing Labor Party which proposed this model in 1993 and campaigned for this model. The governing coalition was split, with the dominant Liberal Party allowing a conscience vote for its members and the rural National Party opposing the model. The republic debate entered Australian politics during the recession of the early 1990s, when the then Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating wanted to shift public attention away from economic issues.
Labor's support for republicanism has been historically attributed to the Irish-Catholic heritage of its voter base. This demographic cleavage was more prominent earlier this century when the Labor Party split over the issue of conscription during World War II, with the Irish Catholic faction arguing against compulsory service in a war to defend British interests. In subsequent decades the sectarian divide between Protestants and Catholics has healed significantly in Australia, if not disappeared altogether. However an anti-British grudge was revived in 1993 by the unfortunate confluence of several factors: an economic recession from which Labor sought distractions; a politically aggressive Labor leader who favoured the politics of personal attacks; and a Labor Party infatuation with old unsettled tribal disputes. The anti-British nature of the 1993 republican push also dovetailed with the Labor Party's appeal to ethnic lobby groups.
When Labor narrowly won the 1993 election, it immediately established an "Advisory Committee", dominated by left-wing cronies, to recommend a republican model. This committee was chaired by merchant banker Malcolm Turnball, who would later go on to become the leading campaigner for the republican movement. This committee eventually recommended a republican system with a President appointed by the federal parliament. Paul Keating eagerly adopted the model and became its strongest advocate.
However opinion polls revealed a dangerous pattern for Labor on this proposition. Initially whenever the topic was raised, in principle support for a republic would rise over 50%, but, as debate intensified and focussed on the details, support would fall away again every time. Voters were also recoiling at the negative anti-British sentiment embodies in much of the republican rhetoric. Labor was hedged between its advocacy for a republic and its unwillingness to propose a constitutional change at a referendum. Meanwhile the centre right Liberal party had to resolve on an approach which would enable it to reconcile the strong monarchist sentiment among its supporters, with the growing wider community preference for some kind of republic.
The Liberal Party solution was to promise that if it won the 1996 election, it would convene a "Constitutional Convention" comprised of both appointed experts and popularly elected delegates. This Convention would consider if Australia should become a republic, debate the merits of different republic models, then select a model which would be put to the public at a referendum. In due course, the Liberal Party won the 1996 election and set about its promise of bring the issue to a head.
Interest Groups
Paul Keating's republican push resulted in the formation of two prominent interest groups.
The Australian Republican Movement drew together the Labor Party, the left-wing Liberal faction and associated trendies, predominantly from the city of Sydney. Many of the public advocates used by the Republican Movement were famous faces from the arts, or sports stars. Throughout its long campaign, the republicans failed to appreciate that their use of "elite" figures was backfiring, with few voters paying serious attention to the preaching of uneducated glamour-pusses. By the time of the 1999 referendum, a multitude of republican splinter groups had sprung up, opposed to the specific model on offer. Malcolm Turnball was a main target for criticism - seen as a millionaire who wanted to impose his personal republic design, despite the preference of most Australians for an elected President.
The Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy were formed in reaction against Paul Keating's proposals and formed the nucleus of the campaign against the 1999 referendum proposal. Many members were sincere "monarchists", loyal to the Crown as an institution that had been a symbol of stability in Australia's constitutional experience. Ex-servicemen who had fought alongside Britain in war were particularly proud supporters of the monarchy. Other ACM supporters and allies were opposed to the particular republic model on offer, or determined to defeat this proposition as a means of rebuffing the politically-correct agenda which it was emblematic of.
The Canberra Press Gallery is a nominally independent collection of journalists from competing newspapers and electronic broadcasters. However since the 1970s this institution has been dominated by notoriously left-wing journalists. When the republican debate arose, the press gallery became extraordinarily unprofessional in their execution of partisan reporting. When the final stages of the 1999 referendum arrived, the Murdoch media ran a wholesale campaign in favour of the republic, distributing bumper stickers with its papers.
The Constitutional Convention
In late 1997 the Liberal-National Government honoured its commitment by conducting a postal ballot to elect half the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The remaining half of the delegates were appointed by the Prime Minister and included constitutional experts plus representatives from the state parliaments (from both government and opposition).
The postal ballot to elect popular representatives was the first voluntary election in Australia for decades. Compulsory voting has been a long-standing part of Australian electoral law - with voters fined if they do not vote! It should be noted that voters are permitted to vote informal. A large part of the Liberal Party has been opposed to the abhorrent practice of compelling people to vote, so this postal ballot was a small victory for liberal principles. [Sidenote: Unfortunately the minority parties who control the balance of power in the Senate cannot be persuaded to abolish compulsory voting at General Elections, mainly because their parties reap protest votes from the many electors who do not wish to be compelled to vote].
Turnout at the postal ballot was little over 50%, showing that interest in the republican issue was minimal. Political observers have noted that the issue attracted little passion in Australia, regardless of the jingoistic arguments for a republic. The Republican Movement captured the largest number of delegate positions, but it's claims of a mandate were undermined by the low turnout. Furthermore the ARM had misled the Australian public by arguing during the postal ballot that it would consider supporting a direct election model, but subsequently ruling out this option entirely when its elected delegates assembled at the Constitutional Convention.
The majority of delegates at the Convention concluded that Australia should become a republic, then set about choosing a model which could go to a referendum.
Four republican models were debated at the convention:
* a republic with a President nominated by the Prime Minister and appointed by a council of senior statesmen;
* a republic with a popularly nominated and elected President;
* a republic with a President nominated by parliament then publicly elected; and
* a republic with a President nominated by the Prime Minister and appointed by parliament (the Keating model).
The final model was chosen after exhaustive ballots which elimated one model at a time. Eventually the Keating model was the last one standing, but it attained less than 50% support from delegates with many abstaining during the various rounds of voting. This would also be the first time that a referendum proposal was forwarded to the electorate without the support of the Prime Minister.
Drafting the Constitutional Changes
Passage of a referendum required the drafting of constitutional changes in parliament, to be subsequently approved or rejected by voters at a referendum. The constitutional changes were drafted to genuinely reflect the model endorsed by the Constitution Convention. However intense lobbying focussed around the wording of the summary question which would appear on the ballot paper. Supporters of the model wanted the words to emphasise the removal of the Queen and her replacement by an Australian Head of State. Opponents wanted the wording to focus on the appointment of the President by politicians. Eventually a compromise was adopted incorporating both elements. Republican Malcolm Turnball was ridiculed in the media for seeking to remove the word "republic" entirely from the ballot paper.
The final model for constitutional change involved 69 changes to the constitution, affecting almost half the sections of the constitution, many of which were subject to intense criticism. Parts of the changes would have allowed the anomaly of states remaining as monarchies within a republican federation. The most criticised technical flaw in the model was a provision which would allow a Prime Minister to arbitrarily dismiss the President - inverting the source of sovereignty and avoiding any principles of due process or natural justice. All the changes were packaged together in a single referendum vote, rather than broken into their component parts.
The Referendum Campaign
The referendum campaign ran intensely for around two-and-a-half months, from the passage of the changes by parliament in late August 1999, through to the vote on 6 November 1999. The government provided $15 million of public funding - split between a "Yes Committee" (favouring the republic proposal) and a "No Committee" (against it).
Ultimately it turned out that the independent "no" campaigns by maverick "Direct Election" supporters would be perhaps more influential than the official campaigns. Prominent Liberal politician Peter Reith was an opponent of this republic proposal, who argued that Australia should adopt a directly elected President, to give voters an increased democratic say. Several prominent political independents were also leading exponents for this popular argument.
The left-wing Labor Party required its members to campaign around a united "Yes" position, while the centre-right Liberal Party allowed its members a conscience vote, and the rural conservative National Party backed a "No" vote. Many Liberal and National MPs signed a joint statement to show that the majority of politicians in the governing conservative coalition supported the no case.
In the months of August and September 1999, published opinion polls gave the republic proposal sufficient support to win a narrow majority. But as the parliament voted on the final proposal, criticisms of the model intensified and were reported in the media. In early October electors received the official government document showing what the changes would be to the constitution. In just two weeks the electorate swung suddenly against the proposal. From mid October, the no vote had opened a wide lead.
When the polls went sour, the media reacted with pack instincts. Few criticisms of the republic model were reported in the mainstream press, other than in republican rebuttal pieces or within for-and-against columns. The Republican Movement accused monarchists of telling "lies" about their model and its effects. Their aim was two-fold: to de-legitimise criticisms and to mount a focus-shifting campaign that distracted from the details of the proposal (putting focus on the character of their opponents). The Murdoch Press was especially unbalanced, with its flagship newspaper "The Australian" being nicknamed "The Republican" by Liberal politicians.
The republican arguments were supported by partisan academics and some renegade left-wing Liberals who argued that the proposals were just "minimalist" changes. The concerted campaign by republicans took its toll, with the yes side recovering some ground between mid October to 6 November. However the noes remained comfortably ahead through to the voting day.
Opinion polls found that the only significant reasons for voting yes were purely symbolic (for example the desire for a distinct national identity). By contrast, no voters were concerned with practical issues concerning the distribution of power between government institutions. Most polls concluded that the desire for a popularly-elected President was the key factor behind the republic's demise among swinging voters. However there was a wide range of reasons for voting no, including practical issues such as the cost. One poll of no voters found that the following beliefs were primary reasons for voting against the changes.
* The current constitution works well and shouldn't be tampered with (45% of no voters saw this as their main argument for voting no).
* There are too many flaws in the current proposed Republic model (33%).
* A republic would not be worthy of support unless voters could democratically choose the President themselves (16%).
* The Queen should be kept as the head of State (9%).
Final Results
Approval of a constitutional amendment in an Australian referendum requires a "double majority".
* First a majority of all the valid votes cast nationally must be "yes" votes.
* Second, there must be majority "yes" votes from citizens in at least four of Australia's six state jurisdictions. The constitution specifies that both a majority of states must approve any constitutional change, as well as an overall national majority. Votes in the Territories are only counted in the national total.
The result of this referendum was defeat for the republic model on both counts.
* At a national level, 54.87% of valid votes were cast against the republic, while 45.13% were cast in favour.
* At a state level, the results were even more decisive - with defeat being meted out to the republic in every state. The best result for the republicans was a 50.16% no vote in Victoria (Australia's second largest voting region). In the largest state of New South Wales 53.57% voted no, despite predictions from the yes supporters that the large migrant communities in this jurisdiction would make this state the leading bastion of a "yes" vote. In the smaller states the outcomes were stark: 56.43% of votes were noes in South Australia; 58.52% noes in Western Australia; 59.63% noes in Tasmania, and 62.56% noes in the aptly named state of "Queensland."
The geographic dispersion of the votes revealed which constituencies supported and opposed the proposal. The only electorates with majority "yes" votes were all contained within suburbs of state capital cities (mostly in high income suburbs). The yes side only won 27.7% of federal electorates. Electorates which voted "no" covered a coalition of rural seats, provincial seats and working-class urban seats. Ironically, most Labor electorates voted no despite the urgings of their parliamentary representatives.
Australian voters have seldom approved of constitutional changes. Of the past 44 referenda (including this one), only 8 have been supported (18%). Most proposals have been defeated because they were changes which would have expanded the power of the national government at the expense of the states (and the majority of these proposals were advanced by Labor governments). This republic proposal fell into the same category - critics pointed out that it would increase the central powers vested in the Prime Minister's office, by reducing the Head of State to a mere puppet.