Talk:Republicanism in Australia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Current status

Apparently the Australian Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says he won't be pursuing republicanism as a priority and it is his political party which has committed itself to republicanism as a matter of policy.

Shouldn't the article be saying something like the monarchy will be remaining for the forseeable future?

You don't have to go that far in the general comunity to find support for the point of view that this issue was brought to a head in 1999. Certainly referendums aren't held that often in Australia and - short of a civil war or military coup - only a popular vote can bring the Queen's rule over Australia to an end.

We could also mention that the mechanism for changing the Constituion Act requires the entire text of the amendment be forumlated BEFORE it is submitted for approval by the parliament, the voters and the Governor-General respectively. Somebody can feel free to correct me here if I am wrong but at this time the Australian Republican Movement's campaign does not include a draft amendment, which means they have not even taken the first step along the road to a republic and another hypothetical vote on breaking ties with the old country.

Steakknife 12:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right to say that there is no plans for a future referendum. However, the ALP is including the plebiscite option in its National conference policies to be put to the 2007 election. That should be mentioned.

As for your comment re the issue being "brought to a head" in 1999, I suspect that that is more POV than anything, it certainly wasn't so for the supporters of direct election, who hoped the defeat of the bi-partisan appointment model would mean another referendum where direct election was put, and it wasn't the case for the ARM either. As for the actual detail of proposals, try here. --Lholden 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the ALP has the plan, supported by the ARM, of putting a plebiscite first as reaffirmation of the broader Australian populace's support for a republic. That was policy last election, I see no indication that it will change this time around. Plebiscites are non-binding in a constitutional sense; but they act as a step-forward, a legimitisation of the republican cause, and an incentive for consensus-building about what a proposed amendment would look like. The ARM currently is canvassing support on a variety of different republican models, as a cursory check of their website will confirm. Slac speak up! 23:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but the ALP also has the socialist objective in their 2007 election platform do they not?

No. The 2007 platform will be endorsed at the National Conference shortly. You may be thinking of the Constitution, the relevant section of which of course nobody takes seriously. Slac speak up! 05:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the republican movement, I don't see the entire text of their proposed amendment on the ARM website. The reality is the non-binding plebicites - if they are ever held - can never bring the Queen's rule over Australia to an end. The exact way a direct election model would work is one hell of a thorny issue. The Australian constitution requires all the details to be worked out in advance of the bill being submitted to parliament is my point.

We might just mention somehow that the Australian people have no proposed amendment to scrutinse at this time and that the official republicans are divided over exactly what they want in any event.

Steakknife 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh? Socialist objective? Where's that exactly?

"non-binding plebicites... can never bring the Queen's rule over Australia to an end". That's not the point - the point is that there is a policy of holding such a plebiscite which will be indicative of the Australian public's support for a republic. The final proposals will be put to a binding referendum, that's where the actual amendments will come in. Obviously such amendments will be debated at that time, so it's not relevant to point out that no such drafts exist at the moment (although, there's plenty of material on the internet on this, as I've linked above). --Lholden 02:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Steakknife, I think we're arguing in parallel here - the reason for the plebiscite is the lack of support for a specific amendment at this time. It's a way of simultaneously grounding and moving forward the debate. I think the crucial point here is that lack of explicit support for a specifically-worded amendment is not equivalent to lack of support among the population for a republic per se. Slac speak up! 05:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This section is about the "current status" of republicanism in Australia. And the current status of the Australian Republican Movement is "near comatose" according to one well known supporter, ABC journalist David Marr. The Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says he won't be pursuing republicanism as a priority.

How do we let readers know that all the heat has gone out of the issue since it was brought to a head in 1999 and that in reality only parliamentarians and a very small % of the general public even thinks about the lawful ruler of their land from year to year? Been there done that is the attitude of most people in Australia about "the republic". This is relevant: a popular vote is one of the three stages in approving a bill to amend the Constitution Act.

The plebicites proposed by the ARM and supported by the ALP may never ever be held (for example, the coalition parties are not formally committed to the ARM's plan, if they where in power what's to stop the executive submitting a bill to abolish the monarchy to parliament at any time?).

So my point is this. Some lesser known republican leaders have categorically said parliamentary appointment is dead so what's to stop the ARM, say, letting members of the public examine their proposed model for an elected presidency? According to republicans this idea reasonates with the public. Why not let us all in on their plans as the mode of altering the federal constitution requires? Why not take the first step on the road to another attempt at making Australia a republic?

Could it be that those people advocating change in this ongoing debate are divided? Why not just say that?

If that's too POV why not just say that the present system is likely to endure for at least a long, long, long, long time and possibly until Christ returns?

Steakknife 09:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you have several points to make, for which this article isn't the right place. If you can verify the Marr quote that's fine; your complaint about republicans not publishing proposals can't be included in any meaningful way. I think showing the issue has dropped in importance is much more difficult also. --Lholden 10:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wouldn't like wikipedia giving foreign readers the impression that Australian republicans are way enthusiastic about the cause like say Irish republicans are, that's all.

I remember when the senate committee handed down its report into republicanism in 2004 John Howard was asked about it and he said "Look, you're the first person who has asked me about it this year". It was in like the middle of the year and he looked annoyed that a journalist would waste his valuable time asking about something so done and dusted and not of public concern. That's the impression he gave me.

The standard method of assessing the support for republicanism is the regular opinion poll which asks that particular question. The result of the latest polling is conveyed in the article. --Lawe 14:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

And I think it is a bit relevant to a section on the current status of republicanism in Australia that the Australian Republican Movement doesn't have the full text of their preferred amendment to show the public as part of their campaign, for reasons to do with s.128 of the Constitution Act.

I know monarchists keep raising this point, that republicans at the turn of the 21st century know what they don't want but don't know what they do.

Steakknife 22:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Ireland is already a republic, or at least most of it is. I don't think anyone's making the comparison. And John Howard has a vested interest in presenting the case as settled - he's firstly a monarchist, and secondly the architect of the 99 referendum, which was resolved to his satisfaction. But that's just his view, not everybody's.

It seems that you view the republican case as illegitimate, because they don't have a formatted referendum question ready to roll several years out from any potential referendum. Okay, fine, but this is just a matter of opinion - how many hoops does a case for change have to jump through before it becomes legitimate (this is a rhetorical question)? How long is a piece of string? It seems fairly clear that your high bar-setting in this regard has to do with a bias in favour of the status quo. This, I reiterate, is an opinion, not something the article needs to reflect. Slac speak up! 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"I know monarchists keep raising this point, that republicans at the turn of the 21st century know what they don't want but don't know what they do." I suspect that this, along with the "it's not an issue for anyone" points is what Steakknife is trying to insert here. I don't know why the POV labels were needed however. --Lholden 00:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hay slac. Yeah man, all I'm saying is the Australian monarchy has special protection compared to some of the monarchies in the other realms. In Australia the full text of the amendment needs to be produced before the vote takes place and not after. Nothwithstanding the fact that history tells us Royal families are mainly swept away in military coups and civil wars, other monarchies - including those outside the Commonwealth - might just hold a plebicite asking a simple yes/no question on the issue and let the parties thrash out the new constitution in parliament afterwards. It is relevant to the current status of republicanism if you think about it, the fact the movement doesn't know what they want.

John Howard and me both make no excuses for our support for the monarchy for sure, but isn't it interesting that Australia's head of government can go for such a long time without anyone even raising the issue of republicanism with him? He could have been lying of course ;) Now that Kevin Rudd has said he won't be pursuing republicanism as a priority I just think the article should make it quite clear republicanism is a low priority for most people. Even their former leader Malcolm Turnbull says he wants the Union Jack to stay on the Australian flag and that the next time for debating the future of the Australian monarchy is at the end of the Queen's reign. You could fairly say there is one faction of republicanism (which includes Gough Whitlam) who have given up on the cause while Elizabeth II lives.

I mean, I see that the current status of republicanism in Australia is that the movement is stalled, without the text of their proposed amendment, and therefore without the hope of another referendum. The plebicites may never ever be held and all the details would have to be disclosed in the end anyway. Pro monarchist groups have said they won't go away even if the threshold question on the republic is passed.

With respect to the special democratic procedures outlined in s.128 of the Constitution Act, can't we find a way of saying Australian republicans know what they don't want but don't know what they do?

I'm in no hurry. What I will do is write a letter to the Australian Republican Movement asking to have a look at their draft bill for abolishing the monarchy and let you'all know what they say.

Steakknife 02:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The ARM has several models complete with draft amemndments to the constitution: http://www.republic.org.au/6models/6models.pdf --Lawe 14:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know the ARM's plans were so far advanced man. I haven't had time to look through that pdf document. Can you give me a link to where republicans have codified the reserve powers? Steakknife 10:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Try the 1993 Republic Advisory Committee report - it has a codification by Prof Winteron --Lholden 11:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A similar codification to what Winterton proposed is included in http://www.republic.org.au/6models/6models.pdf on pages 24-27. --Lawe 13:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The 1999 Republican referendum

There is some evidence to suggest that the NO vote was swelled by republican supporters who were dissatisfied with the text of the proposed amendment. What this section of the article doesn't discuss however are voters generally sympathetic to the existing constitution arrangements who voted YES because they bought into the argument that a federal republic is inevitable and the bill to alter the constitution put before them reflected the mimimum changes needed to excise the Queen from our affairs and establish a presidency.

Steakknife 22:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. What statistics do you have on this? Slac speak up! 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a set of polls done at the 99' referendum showing the breakdowns by model. I just don't know where they are. --Lholden 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Low priority

The current status section of the article might say some like "the issue remains a low priority for most Australians".

Now, I have seen Newspoll surveys where issues are listed and people are asked to nominate them as being "important to them". I saw one in the relatively recent past which had republicanism listed as one of the issues. 1% of people said it was "important" to them.

I'm just testing the waters here, but if I could find a reference for this poll who would support such a re-write?

My concern is that we don't want to be giving foreign readers the impression there is a lot of enthusiasm for republicanism in Australia. Even republican leaders admit a lot of their supporters are lucky to think about the issue from year to year.

Steakknife 02:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can verify it, you can include it. However, I'm not sure that a re-write is what is needed. As I said above, any other comments about the importance or otherwise of the issue needs to be verified also. --Lholden 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on that Newspoll finding monarchists would have to be right in asserting that the main people who talk about republicanism post referendum are parliamentarians, journalists and a small % of politically aware people.

I reckon saying it remains a low priority for most Australians is fair and accurate if it was supported by a link to the poll.

Steakknife 03:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Which poll are you referring to? The Newspoll poll linked to shows a much greater percentage of support for a republic, moreover it also shows a greater percentage of support for a republic when Prince Charles accedes to the throne. You can't, by definition of the word "assert", base a POV claim on the poll linked to. --Lholden 03:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Some Newspolls ask people about their in principle support for a republic whilst the one I was referring to asked them if the issue was "important" to them. The republic consistently rates 1% on every one of these scale of importance type surveys I've seen.

What if we could link a Newspoll showing 1% of people think republicanism is important to the statement "the issue remains a low priority for most Australians?" is what I am saying.

Steakknife 05:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Provided that we provide figures on how many Australians think the monarchy is important :) Slac speak up! 05:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As I keep saying, if you can verify it, then it can be included. --Lholden 22:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of date opinion poll

Support for the republic has dropped 1% according to a 2007 opinion poll I found here: http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl

Wikipedia needs to stay up to date with these snapshots of public opinion taken from time to time, we don't want to make out support for Australian republicanism is greater then what it is.

Steakknife 03:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the poll with the 2007 one. --Lholden 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II

In the section that discusses where Australian republicanism is at today maybe the article could mention the fact that people like John Howard, Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Turnbull to name a few have all conceeded there is no chance of Australia becomming a republic while Queen Elizabeth II reigns.

Steakknife 05:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Australia Act and other reforms

I see the following text in this section:

"Nevertheless, all Australian Senators and Members of the House of Representatives still swear to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty before taking their seats in Parliament. This is because this requirement is in the Constitution, and cannot be changed by legislation, but only by the people at a referendum."

I dunno, what's this "still swear" all about. To me this sorta implies federal parliamentarians would have by now scrapped the oath the the Queen is they could of their own accord. I don't know so much.

It's like saying we "still have a parliament" because it can't be abolished by legislation.

Steakknife 06:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just have a look at Section 42 of the Constitution, and you will see that members cannot take their seats without making the oath or affirmation. Section 46 provides that any member who does so could be sued for $200 by every person in the country for every day he sits in Parliament. These sections can only be modified by referendum.

Many people love to judge the politicians when they are swearing allegiance, to decide whether they are being truthful, honest and sincere, or whether they are lying in their teeth. If, in the 107 years since federation, there had been ONE member who announced that he would not be taking up his seat because he could not swear allegiance to the Queen, the status of politicians would have increased immensely.```` plerdsus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plerdsus (talk • contribs) 06:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

What is the NPOV dispute here exactly? --Lholden 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The section "current status" could say something like no one is pursuing republicanism as a priority.

58.168.31.16 13:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Good - I've removed the tag as that's exactly what Kevin Rudd has been quoted in the article as stating. --Lholden 09:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

1 republic or 7?

One thing this article doesn't make clear is whether or not a Commonwealth referendum abolishing the monarchy would also abolish it in all six states - would separate changes be needed as well? And could, say, Queensland retain the monarchy even if abolished at Commonwealth level? Timrollpickering 20:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think from memory the legal amendments to the Australian (federal) constitution also trickled down to the states, so technically it would be seven republics --Lholden 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Each state would have to agree to the changes to their own constitutions, however. The Commonwealth government couldn't force a republic, or any model thereof, on any state. --G2bambino 20:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It could actually, under the consistency provision (sect 104 I think). The Australian constitution is fairly unique for a federal system in that (much unlike Canada) the Commonwealth government can limit the states'. This is how John Howard forced the states to accept the GST cut-up in place of their own sales taxes (which wouldn't be possible under the US constitution). --Lholden 20:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely to be §104, which is concerned with the rates for carriage of goods by railway. (What a strange thing to include in a national constitution.) I expect you refer to §109, which says that if a state law and a Commonwealth law are inconsistent, the Commonwealth law shall prevail. However, the Commonwealth government cannot regulate the state governments, nor may the state governments regulate the Commonwealth government, except, of course, by tied grants. The GST only works because the states considered it more important to get that money that it was to have their powers, considering the GST was relatively free. This is no different to the situation in the US, where the drinking age is 21 y.o. in all states because it means they can get highway funds. In my view, a large part of Commonwealth governments' successful centralisation of Australia, when compared with the US Federal governments', has been because there's a lot more US States, so a much greater chance that one will stand up for their rights.

  However, I don't think any Commonwealth government would risk a tied grant requiring the state to become a republic—some states would require a referendum on the issue. This would essentially become a referendum on federal centralisation: If the people turn it down (like we have with almost every federal referendum on centralisation), it would make it very difficult politically to continue these tied grants, and could result in the state(s) concerned declaring independence.

  In addition, the Australia Acts explicitly refer to Her Majesty as a component of the State governments. The Australia Acts can only be repealed or ammended with the concurrence of all states. So even if one single state felt it was getting a raw deal by being compelled to become a Republic against its will, it would have the power to refuse any change to the other states.

  A Federal referendum on the issue cannot on its own remove the Queen of Australia. If that was the end of the story, we would obtain an absurd situation wherein the states were constitutional monarchies, with the Queen of Australia reigning over them, but the Commonwealth was a republic, with a President (or Governor-General) as head of state. Although, admittedly, this is not horribly different to the situation that lasted until 1986, wherein the Queen of the United Kingdom reigned over the states, and the Queen of Australia reigned over the Commonwealth—we were just fortunate enough to only have a single person acting in two capacities.

  One republic and six monarchies.

—Felix the Cassowary 11:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

the Australia Acts explicitly refer to Her Majesty as a component of the State governments. That's precisely what I was thinking of, and I believe that's what the original poster was talking about at the top of this thread. --G2bambino 14:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This question was answered at the Gladstone Convention in June 1999. According to the communique "If Australia were to decide to become a republic, an individual State could retain its links with the Crown. If Australia were to decide to become a republic, then in the interests of national unity and subject to particular state constitutional requirements being satisfied, each State should seek to adopt for itself a republican model." [1] --Lawe 13:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Models without a distinct Head of State

There is a class of model which does not have a Head of State. Someone inserted something which was unsourced at the top of Proposals for Change, however I checked the Senate Report and did find a reference to abolishing the Governor-General and monarchy. The difference is that these submissions gave functions to the Speaker or President of the Senate. --Lawe 13:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Type of Republic

Does Australia want to become a full republic state or a commonwealth republic? 122.57.113.2 (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Under all proposals I have read Australia would be a commonwealth republic. I am not sure what full republic state means, if it means anything. Australia would be an independent republic like any other. --Lawe (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A 'full republic' (like United States) is a republic with a head of state with no connections to a mother country and do not recognise with another country what-so-ever.

A Commonwealth republic where they are not in a personal union relationship, do not have Elizabeth II as their respective Head of state, nor do they have another monarch as Head of State. Elizabeth II is still the titular Head of the Commonwealth, but does not have any political power within the Commonwealth republics. (?Taifarious1?) 07:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A full republic often refers to the component republics of the USSR and the former USSR - a tautology or euphemism perhaps? --Lawe (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it Australians overwhelmingly wanted to remain in the commonwealth and keep our current system of government excepting severing ties to the queen and having a directly elected president. Even monarchists wanted this system if they had lost the referendum and true republicans (the common man in the street) believe the debate was hijacked by "elite" republicans in the ARM who ignored this by supporting the bi partisan model. It was a foregone conclusion that the referendum would be lost due to this despite having the numbers to pass it in pre polling. This was a very big issue during and after the referendum failed with the media blaming the ARM for the loss. Therefore... the system I described would be the only one to get enough support to win a referendum now or at any future time. Wayne (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

These distinctions don't really make sense. The US is part of many international organisations like NATO, the UN etc. Also, as you correctly point out Elizabeth II is the titular Head of the Commonwealth but does not have any special power but you neglected to mention that mat best is seen as an equal of their respective head of state in terms of stature. Many Commonwealth nations do not consider the UK the 'motherland' particularly former colonies like India, Malaysia, Nigeria. While the commonwealth connection is a part of their identity, it is not comparable to that seen in Australia, NZ or Canada. And as an aside, other connections often take greater importance then the commonwealth, for example ASEAN for Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. Nil Einne (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Split Question text removed from 'Republican Referendum'

I removed the following text from the sub-heading 'Republican Referendum'. I had done this before and the author re-inserted it:

Prior to the referendum there was also extensive media debate about splitting the first question into two parts, as combining a President elected by Parliament with the vote to become a Republic was thought by many to be an attempt to sabotage the vote. This resulted in a Republican lobby group campaigning for a no vote if the question was not split or modified to include a directly elected President.

Can anyone can find anything in the source articles which substantiate the claims about a media debate about spliting questions? A split question does not even make sense under the existing law. Real Republic members (Ted Mack, Clem Jones, Phil Cleary) were appointed to the NO committee to campaign against an appointed President. Their direct election model was defeated at the Constitutional Convention. --Lawe (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4