Comment & Analysis

As James’ reported the other day, Australian PM Kevin Rudd is facing mounting pressure to bring forward a vote on an Australian republic. I thought this would be a good opportunity to answer the monarchist claims about Australia’s previous vote on this issue in 1999.

Monarchists have often said to me, in a rather triumphant tone that suggests they believe this to be a killer argument, that Australia resoundingly rejected the idea of a republic and supported the retention of the monarchy in the 1999 referendum. In fact they simply rejected the one model of republic on offer, opting to keep the status quo so as to get a chance at a better model in the future.

It is important to note that opinion polls consistently put support for an Australian republic over 50%. Since September 2008 both the PM and leader of the opposition (and the Green Party) have been pro-republic. The odds are in favour of a second referendum being won by the republicans. If and when Australia does agree to become a republic, this will have a significant positive impact on the republican movement in the UK and around the Commonwealth.

The Australian referendum in 1999 was lost for a number of reasons:

• Voters were given just one choice, either stick with the status quo or adopt a poor model of republic, in which the PM and opposition leader would nominate a single candidate who would be appointed by parliament. The PM would be able to remove the president from office. This split the republican vote and many republicans voted against a republic. Notably the monarchists campaigned against “this republic” as a tactical move to win over republicans not happy with the one model on offer.
• It is historically difficult to win a referendum in Australia, especially if the PM is opposed to a ‘yes’ vote. This is partly because a referendum needs to secure a majority in the whole country and a majority in a majority of states.
• Many viewed the republican issue and those in the ‘yes’ camp as ‘elitist’. This was partly due to hostility to Paul Keating who had not long been defeated as PM at the 1996 election, and reinforced by the model on offer which excluded the voters from choosing their president.

Australia has long been in favour of a republican constitution. They’re not desperate for it, they’re not campaigning hard for it, but they do want it. They see little relevance for the monarchy in modern Australia. A significant proportion of Australians have no familial ties with the UK and the nation’s deep-seated sense of fairness and equality does not leave much room for deference and ‘royalty’.

The next referendum is the republicans’ to lose. If Rudd gives the people the right choices, I have little doubt Australia will dump the monarchy.

Back in the UK, Republic advocates a very different model of republic to that which was proposed in Australia in 1999. The model of a parliamentary system with a directly elected non-executive president is similar to – according to opinion polls – the model preferred by the majority of Australians. A win for republicans in Australia will certainly have repercussions for the republican movement and the monarchy back here in the mother country.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 7th, 2009 at 10:24 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.