I’ve written a story on the failed 1999 republic referendum for Friday’s paper, looking back at how the issue was reported in Mount Gambier a decade ago.
The electorate of Barker recorded a “No” vote of 67.57 percent, which was one of the highest results in Australia and the second highest in South Australia.
My story on Friday will show the “No” vote in Mount Gambier was over 70 percent.
That’s interesting, because Mount Gambier normally records a solid Labor vote at federal elections in the town booths and Labor was advocating a “Yes” vote in 1999.
A study of the results by electorates shows a strong regional vote against a republic, or at least the model that was put forward.
Looking at Victoria, the Yes vote was high in safe city Liberal seats like Higgins (63.66%) and Kooyong (64.24%) but low in Liberal country seats like Wannon (35.54%) and Murray (30.48%).
The Yes vote was predictably high in safe Labor seats in Melbourne like Melbourne Ports (65.90%) and Wills (58.74%), but curiously low in Labor country seats, eg Ballarat (40.91%) and McMillan (36.37%). McMillan is now Liberal, but was marginal Labor at the time.
I may write elsewhere in more detail about the reasons. Fundamentally however, country people are socially conservative. That doesn’t mean they won’t vote Labor, just they’re suspicious of change.
These articles might be of interest:
That’s fascinating to me. Do you think the country seats voting no was only about resistance to change…or is there more to it than that? Do many people still have love and loyalty for the Queen?
I wouldn’t call it loyalty, but more affection, like for a grandmother.
The Queen is probably about as conspicuous in Australia as she is in America. Apart from the coinage, there are few visible reminders.
Ironically, that’s probably damaged the republican cause because most people realise we are effectively a republic anyway; all the powers of the Crown are invested in the Governor General, who is an Australian appointed by the Prime Minister.
The campaign for the “No” vote did a wonderful job!
I spoke to a few people at the time and heard the “we don’t want the pollies’ President” line parroted back to me, referring to the fear of politicians putting Presidential candidates forward for the vote.
No amount of “Yes, but who do you think selects the Governor General now? And then we don’t even get to vote!” could dislodge that catch-phrase.
Mind you, after the 1975 Crisis, the teeth were largely pulled out of the GG role, so it’s largely a moot point now. There’s no legal appeal to the UK Privy Council, no right of the Queen to dismiss a Parliament, not much else the Crown can do within Oz, really…
The “NO” vote on the republic, was a huge success. I believe that the monarch and England are a huge part of our history and if becoming a republic is a way to make us more independent, then I disagree with that statement. We have a British heritage and becoming a republic would be a great loss.
Personally, I am favour of Australia becoming a republic.
I believe Australia should have its own Head of State.
Whilst it’s never going to be the case (or at least it would be very rare) that under any system an ‘ordinary’ person is going to become the Head of State, I would prefer a republican system, where at least in principle equality of opportunity exists, rather than under a monarchy, where it is of course basically about being lucky (or unlucky, depending on your point of view!) enough to be born into a particular family.
I generally consider myself a constitutional conservative on most issues (for instance, I know that Michael has more radical views on federalism than me) and I view a move to an Australian republic not as part of a radical overhaul of our constitutional arrangements, but instead as a natural and gradual evolution of our relationship with the UK.
For the past 150 years of so there has been a gradual and continuous move to reduce Australia’s legal ties with the UK and I would see a move to a republic sometime in the early 21st century as a natural continuation of this trend.
I would strongly support Australia’s continued membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, as most former British colonies have chosen to do so.
It is probably fair to say that a majority of Australians are in favour of a republic, however as Ian MacKereth mentioned there was strong opposition to the ‘President Elected By Parliament’ model proposed.
However I support this model, as opposed to the ‘Direct Election’ model preferred by most of the public.
A ‘Direct Election’ model would be inappropriate in a Westminster system such as Australia’s.
However, the problem is explaining this to the public. As my Year 12 Studies of Societies teacher said a few years ago to me, most of the public think ‘We want to elect the President like Americans do’, without realising the differences between our systems.
It is not surprising then that the more straight-forward ‘Just Vote No’ (so to speak) campaign, has more success.
A ‘Direct Election’ model is also never likely to even reach referendum stage.
Whilst to succeed a referendum must have public support, to even have the question posed the public it must get support of the political elite; they will never support a system that would potentially reduce their power.
In my opinion, it is likely that at some point in the future Australia will become a republic (with the ‘President Elected By Parliament’ model).
Currently, the republic has almost universal support in the ALP and the Liberals are divided on the issue.
One of the main contributors to the monarchist campaign’s success in 1999, was the support of then Prime Minister John Howard, who tied the monarchy to support for tradition and Australian identity, as opposed to a ‘politically correct’ attack on this identity.
The best chance for success for a republic, I think, lies in a future pro-republic Liberal PM being able to ‘position’ a move to a republic as a natural evolution and a furtherance of an Australian identity rather than an attack on it (I say Liberal PM, because I think a Liberal PM would be better able to neutralise the notion of a republic as ‘too radical’ than a Labor PM).
It’s misleading Adam to imply that Australia doesn’t have its own head of state. The Governor General performs that role, including representing Australia overseas, which the monarch has never done.
Sir David Smith writes in detail about this in his book “Head of State” (available at the Mount Gambier Library).
I don’t agree that the majority of Australians favor a republic. The polls are indecisive. My assessment is that 10% of Australians are strongly in favor of the constitutional monarchy and 20-30% are strongly republican. The rest are in the middle and most lean towards the status quo. Their answer to a survey varies according to how the question is framed.
It’s hard to know how much support the constitutional monarchy has inside the ALP because members are not allowed to vote against party policy, but you’re probably right in terms of MPs and rank and file members.
However, bear in mind that many working class people voted against the referendum question. The highest yes vote was in Liberal and Labor inner city seats. It tapered away in the suburbs and regions. Andrew Landeryou makes some comments about this on VexNews and remarks how the issue is potentially political poison for K Rudd if he were game enough to raise it.
That leads to your final point, which is correct. The only way it will get up is if it’s driven by a Liberal who feels strongly about it. Frankly, I can only see that happening if there’s a major scandal in the Royal Family and/or the monarchy is overthrown in the United Kingdom.
Re federalism, I came across some interesting historical information on this, which I might blog about one day.