The Australian republic referendum held on 6 November 1999 was a two-question referendum to amend the Constitution of Australia. The first question asked whether Australia should become a republic, under a bi-partisan appointment model where the president would be appointed by the federal parliament with a two-thirds majority. This was the model that was endorsed by the Constitutional Convention, held in Canberra in February 1998. The second question, generally deemed to be far less important politically, asked whether Australia should alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.
Since the early 1990s opinion polls had suggested that a majority of the electorate favoured a republic in principle. Nonetheless, the republic referendum was defeated.
Background
Australia is a constitutional monarchy under the Constitution of Australia adopted in 1901, with the duties of the monarch performed by a governor-general selected by the prime minister (although formally appointed by the monarch). Australian republicanism has existed since colonial times, though through much of the 20th century the monarchy remained popular. In the early 1990s, republicanism became an important political issue. Australian Labor Party (ALP) Prime Minister Paul Keating indicated a desire to instigate a republic in time for the centenary of the Federation of Australia in 2001. The opposition Liberal–National Coalition, led by Alexander Downer, though less supportive of the republic plan, promised to convene a constitutional convention to discuss the issue. Under John Howard, the Coalition won the 1996 federal election and set the Convention date for February 1998.
The 1998 Australian Constitutional Convention debated the need for a change to the Constitution of Australia which would abolish the Australian monarchy. 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 direct-election republicans abstained from the vote). The Convention also almost unanimously recommended to the prime minister and parliament that the agreed upon model be "put to the people" in a referendum to be held in 1999.
Division of electorate
The majority of analysis has advanced two main reasons for the referendum defeat:
First, Australians have traditionally been apprehensive about proposed constitutional change. Before 1999, only eight of the 44 proposals put to a referendum, 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. 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".
Second, public opinion varied widely on the issue, and was not a simple positive or negative reaction. The major opinion groups were:
- 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.
Alternative methods for selecting a president
The process for change is seen as an important factor for the eventual outcome in a referendum. There were several other proposals for selecting a president:
- Election
- by the federal Parliament alone
- by federal and state Parliaments (as in India)
- by a popular vote (as in Ireland)
- Selection
- by the Prime Minister
- by consensus among the Government and Opposition
- by a constitutional council (known as the McGarvie Model)
Different groups within the republican cause expressed views as to which model was preferable. Some were committed to one option exclusively.
The two sides
The "Yes" side
The "Yes" campaign was headed by Malcolm Turnbull. It 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".
The "No" side
The organised "No" campaign was led by a mixture of monarchist groups alongside 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 managed 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.
Constitutional Convention
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. Direct election 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. 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.
Although the motion was passed with a simple majority (excluding abstentions), the referendum model did not pass with an absolute majority (less than half of the total delegates supported the motion), 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 to put that model to the referendum, a decision acclaimed by the ARM delegates and the media.
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. Voters in the territories, as they do not live in states, 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, and not counted.