Background Paper 9 1995-96
The Recent Republic Debate - A Chronology
Carolyn Hide
Consultant to the Law and Public Administration Group
Compiler's Introduction
The Recent Republic Debate-A Chronology
Endnotes
Index
The recent republic debate in Australia has been, and indeed still is,
one of the most interesting political debates for a very long time. It
is a profoundly serious debate concerning the nature of our society, its
constitutional, legal, political and social organisation. Nevertheless,
it is a debate with its fair share of amusing moments as well as intelligent
comment and thoughtful discussion.
The debate has been dominated by, but not limited to, politicians such
as former Prime Ministers Paul Keating, Malcolm Fraser, and Bob Hawke,
and Prime Minister John Howard. Former High Court Chief Justice Sir Harry
Gibbs and current High Court judge Michael Kirby have expressed their
views as have opera singer Joan Sutherland, RSL Victorian President Bruce
Ruxton, author Thomas Keneally, and Australia's wealthiest woman Janet
Holmes a Court. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles, too, have contributed.
Even English cricketer Ian Botham became involved when, in March 1992,
while on tour in Australia, he threatened to 'flatten' Mr Keating over
comments he had made supporting a republic.
This paper was not written to argue the case one way or another, to
analyse the issues for or against a republic, or to discuss the questions
that have arisen during the debate. It is a simple chronology of the public
statements of participants, starting with the swearing in as Governor-General
on February 16 1989 of Bill Hayden, (described in the media at the time
as being fiercely republican,) and finishing on March 1 1996, when 500
monarchists rallied outside Government House in NSW protesting against
plans to downgrade the role of the State's Governor-General.
It's a measure of the volatility of the debate, that by October 1995,
Mr Hayden was warning that the Federal Government's plans for a republic
had 'very serious pitfalls' which might threaten effective government,
while Mr Fraser, who in June 1991, opposed the republic on the grounds
the debate was divisive, had, by August, 1995, accepted that a republic
was 'inevitable and right'.
This paper is intended as a background paper, setting out the most recent
statements and allowing the reader to see how the issue arose, changed
and developed. It is also intended as a companion piece to the other papers
in a forthcoming PRS Collection The Constitution Papers, subject
collection number 7.
If a reader wishes to follow what a particular person has said, there
is an index at the back of the paper which cross-references speakers and
page references.
Finally, this chronology is inevitably incomplete. If an explanation
is needed as to why this recent history has been set out in such detail,
I can only say that although I read the newspapers and watched the television
news at the time, it was not until I re-read the newspaper clippings and
other materials that I realised how quickly I had forgotten how far the
debate had moved.
16 February 1989 Bill Hayden, described by the media as fiercely
republican, was sworn in as Governor-General of Australia.(1)
3 April 1991 At a Constitutional Centenary Conference in Sydney,
Mr Justice Pincus, a Federal Court judge, said:
that the year 2001 was an obvious date for Australia to become a republic.
He also stated that the basic reason why we should have an indigenous
head of state, who is either popularly elected or elected by some method
which gives him what might be described as more obvious authority, is
that the day will come, and we'd perhaps got close to it in 1975, when
the question of who is in charge here became terribly important...;I think
the position of the Governor-General, in short, is a bit weak and it should
be clarified and defined and upgraded.(2)
5 April 1991 The Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, spoke at the Constitutional
Centenary Conference at Parliament House Sydney. At the press conference,
he said:
(Y)ou know my position on the question of a republic. It is inevitable
Australia will become a republic. It is a question of when. I think it
is something in which political parties have to get a sense of the feeling
of the community. It still would be something which for a lot of people
would be hurtful but for an increasing number of the Australian population
I think there is probably a feeling that Australia should in all it's
constitutional and legal apparatus be seen to be and in fact be totally
independent. Now having said that I make two other points. I think in
fairness to Her Majesty that I should say that she has been an ideal sort
of head of this nation in the strictly prescribed sense in which she does
it. She doesn't seek to intervene in the affairs of this country. She
has a great knowledge of this country. So therefore when I say that it's
inevitable that this country will become a republic it involves no reflection
upon the role that Her Majesty has played in her constitutional role.
The second thing is I think we shouldn't get this question of a republic
in the wrong sort of proportions. I think it is something that will and
should come to make Australians absolutely understand that we are a completely
sovereign independent nation. But we shouldn't believe that it's going
to make any difference to the daily life of Australian citizens...;It's
something which will probably give them a greater sense of an independent
nationhood, well that's OK. It'll come in due time. What's the right year?
I don't know.(3)
7 April 1991 The leader of the National Party, Mr Tim Fischer,
said on the Sunday program, in relation to Prime Minister Hawke's
comments, that
'The prospect of President Paul Keating would be an absolute disaster
for Australia resented by all Australians. I do not see it as inevitable
that Australia will become a republic and it's a matter for the people
and the people, especially in country Australia, will reject that all
the way.'
25 June 1991 A proposal prepared by the Federal Minister for
Employment, Education and Training, John Dawkins, was put to the ALP National
Conference.
This conference calls upon the Government to embark upon a public education
campaign, culminating in a referendum which would effect reform of the
Australian Constitution and other political institutions to enable Australia
to become an independent Republic on 1 January 2001.
The resolution, proposed by Senator Chris Schacht, was passed unanimously.
25 June 1991The Leader of the Opposition, Dr John Hewson, commented
on the question of Australia becoming a republic in the year 2001.
It's just a diversion. Turning Australia into a republic won't do anything
for our foreign debt or our interest rates, it won't create any jobs for
Australians. It is just a diversion.(4)
26 June 1991 The Western Australian Premier, Dr Carmen Lawrence,
supported Australia becoming a republic.(5)
26 June 1991 A former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser and his
Defence Minister, Sir James Killen, opposed Australia becoming a republic
on the basis that the issue was divisive.(6)
26 June 1991 A former Liberal Senator, Neville Bonner, said that
Australia had been served well by the ties it had maintained with Britain.
And besides, if Australia became a republic we, the Aboriginal people,
would be no better off because the changes that are needed to help us
don't include republican status. I see no point.(7)
26 June 1991 Dr Hewson said (O)ur Party position on republicanism,
is that we are opposed to it. I mean, we believe in a constitutional monarchy,
it has been a central part of our platform, if you like, since the days
of Sir Robert Menzies. I know people are saying with the changing nature
of our economy, we are moving towards the circumstances where people will
want a republic, I don't believe that. I don't think it is inevitable
in Australia...; .What disturbs me is that, the last resort I guess of
the failed economic manager of the failed Government, is to appeal to
patriotism and nationalism and it came out yesterday, as an issue, as
diversion.(8)
27 June 1991 Prime Minister Hawke reiterated his view on the
inevitability of a republic and said '(n)ow just how quickly that happens
I feel has got to be a matter for the community to allow itself to express.
That view of mine is consistent with the resolution that's been adopted
by the Conference.'(9)
27 June 1991 The Opposition spokesman for Industrial Relations,
John Howard, commenting on the ALP National Conference proposal said:
I'm not in favour of it. I would not presently favour changing Australia
to a republic. I believe in the Westminster system of government where
you have a division between the head of State and the head of Government.
The present system has served us well. We are for all practical purposes
an independent country...;and in some senses we have the best of both
worlds. Those people who don't particularly care for the royal link, don't
find their daily lives invaded with it. On the other hand, there are millions
of Australians who hold the association very dear, and whilst others will
disagree with them, what the Labor Party is now embarking upon is a 10
year period of division and the development of enmity and bitterness in
the community over an issue which, if it were left alone, would in the
fullness of time solve itself in a non-divisive manner.
27 June 1991 The Queensland RSL 75th Congress meeting in Mackay,
voted unanimously to oppose the proposal adopted by the ALP national conference
in Hobart. The RSL's vice president, Ray Devere said 'It's against everything
Australian servicemen and women have fought for.'(10)
28 June 1991 A Liberal backbencher in the South Australian Parliament,
Bob Such, said that he saw the establishment of an Australian constitutional
monarchy, as easier, legally and constitutionally, than declaring a republic.
Mr Such suggested that either of the Queen's two younger sons, Prince
Andrew or Prince Edward, would be ideal as resident monarch.(11)
28 June 1991 The Federal Management Committee of the National
Party reaffirmed the Party's long standing support for the constitutional
monarch. The committee agreed that the National Party should vigorously
oppose any referendum question aimed at turning Australia into a republic
or changing the existing Australian National Flag. The party's motto was
Honour to God, Loyalty to the Crown, Justice for All. 'Our policy specifically
supports loyalty to the Crown and Nation, pride in the Australian National
Anthem and God Save the Queen and respect for the existing Australian
National Flag.'(12)
4 July 1991 The Victorian President of the RSL, Bruce Ruxton,
said the decision of the ALP national conference to endorse a referendum
on becoming a republic was 'an obscenity'.(13)
7 July 1991 At the launch of the Australian Republican
Movement by author, Tom Keneally, the following declaration was issued.
We, as Australians, united in one indissoluble Commonwealth, affirm
our allegiance to the nation and people of Australia. We assert that the
freedom and unity of Australia must derive its strength from the will
of the people.
We believe that the harmonious development of the Australian community
demands that the allegiance of Australians must be fixed wholly within
and upon Australia and Australian institutions.
We therefore propose as a great national goal for Australia:
THAT BY THE FIRST OF JANUARY, 2001-THE FIRST DAY OF THE TWENTY-FIRST
CENTURY AND THE CENTENARY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF THE FEDERATION-AUSTRALIA
SHALL BECOME AN INDEPENDENT REPUBLIC.(14)
7 July 1991 A special task force was set up to fight for the
preservation of royal ties with Britain, headed by former Liberal Party
President Sir John Atwill. Its members included Federal Opposition Industrial
Relations spokesman John Howard.(15)
8 July 1991 Merchant banker and lawyer Malcolm Turnbull said
that if the Westminster political system were retained, a simple change
to the Constitution was all that would be needed to declare a republic.
'The reference to "the Queen and Her Majesty's heirs and successors in
the sovereignty of the United Kingdom" could be replaced with "The Queen
shall mean the President of Australia who shall be selected by [whatever
means]", he said.' Mr Turnbull also said that 'The Liberals are just turning
what should be an apolitical citizens issue into a party political one
for shabby political gain and I think that's a great pity.'(16)
8 July 1991 The Liberal Party president, Peter King, said the
'ARM was an ALP inspired move as obvious as night follows day. The Labor
Party needed a smokescreen to detract attention from its poor economic
performance. It's Labor's republic and nobody should be fooled by it.'(17)
9 July 1991 Heather Gow, the vice-president of the Royal Commonwealth
Society, which had about 600 members said that anyone who spoke ill of
the Queen and who pushed for a republic was guilty of 'sedition and/or
treason'.(18)
12 July 1991 Liberal Senator Rod Kemp wrote to the Australian
Financial Review and argued that there were a number of important
constitutional matters to be resolved such as: 'What will be the role
of the republican head of State? How will the republicans prevent the
head of State either from becoming a mere political cipher (by prime ministerial
appointment), or a major political power (by direct election)? What protections
will be put in place to check a government which acts illegally?'
17 July 1991 Former Treasurer, now Labor backbencher, Paul Keating
was asked where he stood on the republic by Ray Martin and replied 'I've
got a sneaking suspicion there's a certain inevitability about it all.
But I think it's good there's a public debate about it rather than a political
debate. Because you know once you get a political debate, it all becomes
polarised, it's like the referendums.'(19)
17 July 1991 Liberal Senator Bronwyn Bishop issued a media release
which said:
It may well have been High Noon on the Midday Show when Ron Casey took
a swipe at Normie Rowe but this conduct indicates just how divisive the
debate on the Monarchy has become. Not content to see the country on its
knees as a result of the recession the Labor Party must be pleased that
it is dividing the community on an issue which has absolutely no political
relevance.(20)
21 July 1991 The Opposition spokesman on Industrial Relations
John Howard, writing in The Sunday Telegraph, said: the republicans
are trying to have it both ways. They want to achieve a fundamental change
to Australia's Constitution yet have made the political judgement that
the chances of winning that change are much greater if the public are
lulled into believing that there is really no change at all. As a democrat
I totally accept and respect the right of fellow Australians to advocate
a republic. However their advocacy should be upon the basis that Australia
will be better off by putting aside the present system. There are many
who think it quite incongruous that Australia's head of state should live
in the United Kingdom. If so we have lived with that incongruity for a
long time and there is little evidence that our independence, self-esteem
and dignity as a nation has suffered as a consequence...;In many ways
we have at present the best of both worlds. Some describe it as a crowned
republic.(21)
21 July 1991 The Governor-General, wrote to Labor backbencher
Barry Jones, in relation to a reference by Mr Jones to Mr Hayden as 'a
closet republican'. Mr Hayden reportedly said that he had never professed
such (republican) beliefs to anyone, including you. Indeed, for many years
up to the present, and especially when I was Leader of the Opposition
for several years, I had gone out of my way, and continue to do so, to
point out that I believe the republican cause to be unimportant in its
own right and to be politically counter-productive. I wonder if you would
be good enough to let me know the basis on which you made this sweeping
claim? ...;can I take it that, should you be commenting in this area in
future, you will do so with accuracy?(22)
24 July 1991 The Labor Premier of South Australia, John Bannon,
said that 'there was no overriding constitutional or social reason for
becoming a republic, though the move was probably inevitable'.(23)
26 July 1991 Former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam said that 2001
would be a realistic target date for establishing a republic and that
he believed the person appointed to the presidency would be elected by
all members of parliament, rather than by the people or on the advice
of the Prime Minister.(24)
4 August 1991 The Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn, the
Right Reverend Owen Dowling said that 'I personally am in favour of the
debate about a republic, though I know there are many members of the church
who are horrified by the thought and are against the matter being debated
in Australia.'(25)
12 August 1991 The Victorian Liberal Party State president, Michael
Kroger, said that the Victorian Liberal Party would begin a campaign to
win grass-roots support to fight moves to make Australia a republic. Mr
Kroger said 'Liberals could not afford to ignore recent statements of
support for a republic from the ALP.'(26)
20 December 1991 Paul Keating sworn in as Prime Minister after
deposing Bob Hawke.
10 January 1992 The Labor Government in South Australia replaced
the royal coat of arms in courtrooms with the South Australian coat of
arms, featuring the piping shrike, a type of small magpie which lives
in the State.(27)
11 January 1992 The Republican Party of Australia advised that
it would apply to the Australian Electoral Commission for accreditation
as a political party and that it would field two Senate candidates in
each mainland State at the 1992 election. The party had applied to the
Commission in 1987 but the RSL had objected and it was not accredited.(28)
27 January 1992 The Australian Republican Movement (ARM), in
its first annual Australia Day statement said that ill-informed and misguided
debate had created much confusion about a republican Australia. They called
for a republican convention to draft the necessary constitutional changes
and restore a focus to the debate.(29)
31 January 1992 The Victorian State President of the RSL Bruce
Ruxton, wrote that the RSL and its membership 'will never agree to this
country becoming a republic. We are proud to be associated with the Queen,
who is our patron, and who, as this country's head of State, has never
once put a foot wrong. Show me a politician with such a record.'(30)
1 February 1992 The Prime Minister, Paul Keating, called for
a new Australian flag. 'I suppose people around the world are entitled
to say, "We look at your flag-you've got the flag of another country in
the corner. Are you a colony or are you a nation?"' The Leader of the
Opposition, Dr John Hewson, supported the present flag but said debate
over the flag was far less important than solving the problems of the
economy. Dr Hewson said 'I personally think our flag has served us well...;I
know a lot of Australians have fought under it and many have died for
it ...;If it's working well, why change it?'(31)
4 February 1992 Sir Richard Kirby of Aus-flag, argued for a new
Australian flag without the Union Jack incorporated into its design as
the current flag 'proclaims that Australia is still ...; a dominion of
Great Britain', and is, therefore, 'inadequate, divisive and demonstrably
colonial'(32)
10 February 1992 The chairman of the ARM, Tom Keneally, referring
to the forthcoming visit of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, said:
'(i)f we Australians feel we cannot have our own ceremonies and celebrations
without importing a Royal person to give them legitimacy, then of course,
we should pay for the expense of the British monarch's journey.'(33)
10 February 1992 The Opposition spokesman for Industrial Relations,
Employment and Training, John Howard, issued a news release that in part
stated, 'Although I strongly support the monarchy, I fully accept that
a respectable intellectual and emotional case can be made for an Australian
republic ...;however, those advocating a republic should not be allowed
to escape with the furphy that getting rid of the monarchy would save
money. Clearly it would not.'(34)
15 February 1992 In an article in the Australian, Tom
Keneally proposed that:
Australia should have a head of State who is an Australian citizen,
who is appointed by and can be removed by the Australian people and who
represents and owes sole allegiance to the people of Australia. This head
of state or President would have powers approximating those of the Governor-General
and would act solely on the advice of prime ministers and ministers. He
or she would have none of the executive powers enjoyed by the presidents
of the United States or France.(35)
15 February 1992 John Howard, in an article in the Australian
said:
Australia is, and has been for some time, a crowned republic. To many,
the status quo is the best of both worlds. Those who do not care for the
royal link do not find it intruding into their everyday lives. On the
other hand, millions of Australians have a deep respect for the institution
and admire the dedication and sense of duty displayed by the present occupant.
Although this is a minimalist defence of the monarchy and is not the sole
basis of my own view, it does thrust a heavy onus on those wanting to
change to establish a clear national benefit in becoming a republic. A
mixture of historical sentiment, constitutional utility, the proven deficiencies
of alternatives and an instinctive feeling that the aphorism 'If it works
don't fix it' is apt leads me to advocate the retention of the monarchy.(36)
18 February 1992 The Queen arrived in Sydney for the Sydney Council's
150th anniversary. She also visited Dubbo, Canberra and Adelaide before
returning to Britain on 25 February.(37)
19 February 1992 Five State Labor MP's Franca Arena, Ian Macdonald,
Meredith Burgmann, Ann Symonds and Andy Mason, stated that they would
not attend the Queen's unveiling of her official portrait and the afternoon
tea at Parliament House and any other social function. They added that:
Australians should be politically mature enough to have their own head
of state and flag. The Queen should not be the head of the Australian
people simply because she is the British monarch.(38)
23 February 1992 Former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam speaking
at the Australian Young Labor Conference dinner said that it was inevitable
that Australia would become a republic and that it would simply involve
a referendum to change the constitution and to substitute the word President
for Queen and Governor-General.(39)
24 February 1992 During the Queen's visit to Australia, Prime
Minister Keating gave a speech of welcome in which he congratulated the
Queen on the 40th anniversary of her accession to the throne. Mr Keating
noted that Australians had changed over those 40 years, and that some
of those who had sat in Parliament during the Queen's first visit to Australia
in 1954 had seen the world through imperial eyes and that many remembered
monarchs from Queen Victoria onwards. 'This is an altogether different
generation, reflecting the profound change in our two countries and the
relationship between them,' Mr Keating said. The Prime Minister also said
that:
As our constitutional relationship has evolved, so have the circumstances
of our economic and political lives. These days we must both face the
necessities of a global economy and global change of often staggering
speed and magnitude. Just as Great Britain some time ago sought to make
her future secure in the European community, so Australia now vigorously
seeks partnerships with countries in our own region. Our outlook is necessarily
independent. That independence in part was reflected in your becoming,
in 1973, Queen of Australia. In 1992 it is reflected in our growing sense
of national purpose.(40)
25 February 1992 The Opposition spokesman on Trade, Alexander
Downer, said that the Prime Minister's speech was 'poorly conceived, weakly
delivered and downright ungracious. He suggested that Mr Keating would
be remembered as Australia's most petty, mean-minded and ungracious Prime
Minister since Federation.'(41)
25 February 1992 The Opposition spokesman on Industrial Relations,
John Howard, said 'the reception for the Queen was insultingly
low key and that Mr Keating's speech was inappropriate.'(42)
25 February 1992 The Opposition Leader, Dr Hewson, said 'he was
very disappointed that Mr Keating had taken the opportunity to give a
tilt in favour of republicanism in front of the Queen. I come from a similar
background to Paul Keating. We were taught to show a bit of respect and
I think that was an occasion to show respect and not to make a political
statement.'(43)
26 February 1992 Prime Minister Paul Keating was criticised in
the British press for putting his arm around the Queen.(44)
27 February 1992 During Question Time, the Prime Minister accused
Britain of abandoning Australia to the Japanese during the Second World
War. He said that Britain was the 'country which decided not to defend
the Malayan peninsula, not to worry about Singapore and not to give us
our troops back to keep ourselves free from Japanese domination.' He also
accused Dr Hewson of having subservient respect for Britain, rather than
respect for his own nation. 'If he believes that I cannot say that this
is a more independent country, that we're not tied to Britain's coat tails...;if
he thinks that we ought to be basically into British boot-strapping, forelock
tugging, and he calls that respect, it's not respect for this country,'
Mr Keating said. He then spoke of the 1950's as 'the golden age when vast
numbers of Australians never got a look in: when women did not get a look
in and had no equal rights and no equal pay; when migrants were factory
fodder; when Aborigines were excluded from the system...;and that awful
cultural cringe under Menzies which held us back for nearly a generation.'(45)
28 February 1992 John Howard wrote to the Australian Financial
Review and said:
If Australia were to become a republic because the majority of Australians
believed we would be better governed as a consequence, then so be it.
That would not be a judgement I would advocate or that I believe on a
proper analysis of the arguments should be accepted. However, it would
at least have the merit of a decision taken for the right reason. If by
contrast, we throw out the Monarchy because we think it will make us more
acceptable in our region, we will not only be mistaken but our decision
will be regarded with patronising contempt by our Asian neighbours.(46)
28 February 1992 The Leader of the National Party, Tim Fischer,
issued a media release that said in part:
The National Party and indeed the Coalition strongly supports the retention
of our Constitutional Monarchy, it has served us well in the past and
present and helps provide a great deal of stability and continuity. It
is for these practical reasons, rather than sentimental reasons, that
the Constitutional Monarchy be retained; in saying this it does not cut
across the need for Australia to greatly boost its relations and its economic
and export links with Asia.
Mr Fisher also warned that a Republic of Australia and the creation
of an Office of President of Australia would lead to greater centralisation
of powers within the cocoon of Canberra.'(47)
28 February 1992 The Leader of the Opposition, Dr Hewson, appeared
on the Alan Jones' radio program and the Hinch Program.
Dr Hewson said on the Hinch Program that
I don't think it (republicanism) will be an issue in the next election.
I think it is an issue that we will debate in Australia for quite some
time...;I'm not (a republican), I actually think that the constitutional
monarchy has worked particularly well for Australia and I have this quite
simple view that when things work well and they don't need changing, why
bother changing them? I am concerned that these issues quite often arise
as a diversion that keeps us away from the main game and right now that
is creating jobs.
28 February 1992 The Sydney Morning Herald reported that
A palace spokesperson confirmed that there was no royal protocol on
touching the Queen, who arrived back in Britain today. The Queen is a
normal person and there are no rules and regulations about touching her.(48)
29 February 1992 The Sydney Morning Herald reported that
former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser had written to the Daily Telegraph
in London defending Mr Keating's speech to the Queen and claiming that
Australia 'got the worst end of the deal' from Britain in both world wars.(49)
29 February 1992 Fifty-seven per cent of people questioned by
the Saulwick Age Poll wanted Australia to become a republic, 81 per cent
supported Australia remaining a member of the Commonwealth, 39 per cent
said they wanted the Queen to remain head of state and 4 per cent, didn't
know what they wanted.(50)
1 March 1992 The Sunday Telegraph reported that Mr Keating
had said 'I think Australia will end up a republic at some point but certainly
not while I'm Prime Minister.'(51)
1 March 1992 Former Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam said
I've changed my views on the question of the monarchy in the past 16
years. My old view was that it didn't matter...;Why I changed my mind
is because of the conduct of Sir John Kerr...;What we would propose is
that the president should be the head of state and should carry out the
only job there is for a head of state: transfer power from one administration
to another if an election shows that the former administration no longer
has a majority in the House of Representatives, or if the Parliament shows
the former administration has not got a majority in the House of Representatives.(52)
1 March 1992 Labor Senator Bob McMullan said that 'for more than
20 years I have been of the view that it is both inevitable and desirable
that Australia should become a republic.'(53)
1 March 1992 The Saulwick poll in the Sydney Morning Herald
and the Melbourne Age showed that 42 per cent of people questioned
preferred that Australia remain in the Commonwealth as a republic, 15
per cent wanted Australia to become a republic outside the Commonwealth
and 39 per cent wanted Australia to remain in the Commonwealth with the
Queen as head of state.(54)
1 March 1992 The Young Liberal Movement of Australia issued a
press release which said:
Prime Minister Keating's attack on our friends in Britain is simply
a tactic to divert attention...; and attempt to fix the mess that he has
created...;Keating cannot make us a republic until he makes us one nation:
his plan to try to do that is a dismal failure and has set back his republican
cause by years as we repay the debt it leaves us with.(55)
1 March 1992 The Sunday Telegraph reported that hundreds
of people had joined the Australian Republican Movement since the Queen's
visit, including Australia's wealthiest woman, Janet Holmes a Court.
To join the Australian Republican Movement, members sign the following
declaration.
'By January 1, 2001...;the centenary of the proclamation of federation,
Australia shall become an independent republic. Into that goal we now
pledge our best endeavours.'(56)
2 March 1992 Following Prime Minister Keating's remarks on
World War II, debate continued as to whether Britain did all it could
or whether the British knew that Singapore could not be defended but
kept the reports secret from Australia.(57)
2 March 1992 On the first day of the Wills by-election
campaign, the leader of the Opposition, Dr Hewson said that republicanism
would not reduce the number of unemployed in Australia and any debate
on the issue should be secondary to economic recovery.(58)
3 March 1992 Research conducted by the Federal Liberal Party
secretariat showed that seven Labor held seats which would be lost with
a swing of less than 5 per cent, contained high concentrations of British
migrants and that Prime Minister Keating's attack on Australia's traditional
links with Britain and the monarchy could cost the Government a number
of vital marginal seats.(59)
3 March 1992 Former Prime Minister Hawke said that the Government
should make a statement of intent that it wanted Australia to become
a republic and proposed that a referendum be held in the life of the
next Parliament.(60)
6 March 1992 The Deputy Premier of the National Party in NSW,
Wal Murray, said that Mr Keating's criticism of Britain's role (in the
fall of Singapore) during World War II (and the defence of Australia)
was 'a transparent and deceitful exercise in back-alley politics'.(61)
6 March 1992 The Governor-General, Bill Hayden speaking at
a book launch, said that 'too many Australians remain jammed in the
jaws of an old imperialist vice that refuses to let them move on to
a more productive understanding of our neighbours.'(62)
6 March 1992 Mr Murray retaliated, accusing the Governor-General
of 'insulting the Queen and being a stooge of the republican movement'.
The Governor -General has deliberately trammelled the protocol and
convention of his high office and has shown his true colours as a stooge
of the republican push. He has denigrated his high position by issuing
a calculated insult to Her Majesty in the form of a political comment,
reflecting on Australia's existing constitutional system.(63)
7 March 1992 Prime Minister Keating suggested, at the launch
of Rodney Hall's novel, The Second Bridegroom, at Writers Week
in Adelaide, that it was a 'curiosity' to have the Union Jack in the
corner of the Australian flag. He also said, in reply to a question
about how Australians could be more Australian, 'Well, for a start,
by not tugging the forelock at the British establishment. That's a place
for starters, the Liberal Party have yet to learn about that.'(64)
8 March 1992 Former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser wrote that
Those who want to change the system and become a republic seem to
believe that Australia would stand taller, that Australians would be
better off. There is no evidence of that.
There is no point idly and without purpose cutting off 200 years of
history.
In welcoming Her Majesty to Parliament House, the Prime Minister pointed
out that Britain had decided that its economic future lay with Europe,
and that we, partly as a consequence of that, had to recognise that
our economic future lies with the countries of Asia. It was an obvious
comment and not one that could possibly have given offence to Her Majesty
as Queen of Australia.
It was taken, however, by some to be a republican statement, by others
to be discourteous and led to a great furore and a lot of nonsense,
especially in the British press. It also led to further debates in the
Parliament. Here the question of our constitutional forms became much
confused with the question of Australian nationalism and Australian
pride.(65)
8 March 1992 English all-rounder Ian Botham, commenting on
the republican debate said 'Bring Mr Keating here and I'll flatten him.'
The English cricket team later stormed out of Ballarat just hours after
arriving as they claimed that their beds were too short.(66)
8 March 1992 National Party MP, Michael Cobb, said that he
was considering whether to write a letter of complaint to the Queen
over comments by the Governor-General Bill Hayden. During a speech,
Mr Hayden had joked about losing his job after opinion polls showed
a surge of support for a republic. Mr Hayden said 'It doesn't look good
does it? This might be my swan song.' NSW Deputy Premier Wal Murray
claimed the 'outrageous remarks' insulted the Queen and showed Mr Hayden
to be a stooge of the republican movement.(67)
8 March 1992 Liberal Member for Goldstein Dr David Kemp wrote
that: The Prime Minister appears to be one of the few people who has
not realised that Australia is a fully independent country...;Let no
one imagine that a republic can easily be brought about in this country.
There is nothing inevitable about Australia becoming a republic. A move
to a republic would require the powers of the President to be specified,
including his powers in relation to the Senate, and in the case of a
deadlock between the Houses of Parliament. The powers of the Senate
would therefore have to be redefined. This would open up the whole federal
compact on which this country is based.(68)
9 March 1992 The Opposition spokesman on Industrial Relations,
John Howard, referring to Prime Minister Keating, said: that '(i)t is
quite obvious, both from his historically inaccurate anti-British outburst
in Parliament and his more considered speech in Adelaide last Friday,
that the Prime Minister has embarked upon a course of politicising Australian
patriotism...;Nothing could be more divisive, nothing more destructive
of the united national spirit we need and which he claims to champion.(69)
10 March 1992 The Australian reported that 'Mr Howard's
decision to press on with his defence of Australia's ties to Britain
in the face of Dr Hewson's warning has led some shadow Cabinet members
to question what they see as Mr Howard's claim to be able to be(sic)
speak out on a range of issues beyond his portfolio area of employment'.
The paper reported that 'Dr Hewson had told the Shadow Cabinet that
Mr Keating's push for a loosening of ties with Britain was an "artificial"
issue and that Shadow Cabinet members should not be distracted by
it and should return "to the main game". Dr Hewson urged his colleagues
to "get back to the economy" rather than focus on emotional side issues.'(70)
10 March 1992 The Secretary General of the Commonwealth,
Chief Emeka Anyaoku, in a Commonwealth Day radio interview, said that
growing republicanism in parts of the Commonwealth with traditionally
close links to Britain, such as Australia, did not jeopardise the
broad-based organisation.(71)
15 March 1992 The Leader of the Opposition, Dr John Hewson,
said 'I haven't changed my position at all, I'm surprised to see that
people think I have'.(72)
17 March 1992 Prime Minister Keating, in a speech to the
Irish-Australian Chamber of Commerce on St Patrick's Day, said:
I said a few things recently about the flag, but let me say this. We've
got to be certain of who we are to take our place in the world, and we
can't fly two symbols with our nation for much longer. A nation internally
uncertain about its representational image is of course a nation uncertain
about itself. I spent a decade trying to transform the Australian economy...;to
make it a country with an international economic ambition. It became increasingly
plain to me that another kind of transformation is necessary, a social
transformation, a mental transformation, because we are not going to make
it simply be getting the nuts and bolts together, by getting the macro-economy
right,...;we won't ever get it right until we get that mental transformation
that Australia is a country of its own character. Australia is a country
which will make its own way in the world. That's the transformation we
need to really pull off, our internationalisation, our true independence...;But
when it is said in Australia that the contribution we made to Britain
in World War I was not returned in full in World War II when an Australian
view is expressed-scandal and outrage. Yet those who care to consult the
histories, even those written by Englishmen, will find that it's not wrong
or even indeed those who recently consult the Financial Times or
the Guardian or the London Times, will find that it was
not wrong. Yet my dissatisfaction and disaffection is not with Britain
or the British, it is with those who cannot find it in themselves to speak
with an unashamed and wholehearted Australian voice, who not only fail
at the essential task to grasp the future but will not even grasp the
past.(73)
17 March 1992 The Shadow Minister for Trade and Trade Negotiations,
Alexander Downer, issued a media release which said, in response to
the Prime Minister's remarks:
Mr Keating's campaign against Australia's national flag-which he continued
today-is a campaign to make Australians abandon their national heritage,
to turn their backs on their history and to remodel Australia as a
cold, austere, soulless and technocratic State without traditions,
heritage or history. One of the great differences between Mr Keating's
Labor Party and the Coalition is that Mr Keating is essentially ashamed
of our past whereas the Coalition is proud of it...;It is only natural
in a country which owes so much to Britain for the way it is and the
outward expression of that heritage-the language it speaks-that we
should have the Union Jack in the corner of our flag.(74)
18 March 1992 The Treasurer, John Dawkins, said at the launch
of Reluctant Nation: Australia and the Allied Defeat of Japan 1942-45
- by David Day, that:
[The republican debate] is not a diversion. It is a very important
issue which many Australians are already thinking about, have been
thinking about for some time and it is about time the Liberal's stopped
trying to spoil in relation to this issue...;it will only be divisive
if the Liberal Party continue to be irrelevant on this issue. Of course,
they are capable of creating a diversion and a division as they did,
or their predecessors did, right back during the war when something
as simple and automatic as giving effect to the Statute of Westminster
was turned into a political issue by the conservative parties of the
time.(75)
18 March 1992 Dr Hewson said:
It's not going to do anything about jobs if we change the flag or
drop the constitutional monarchy. It's not going to create any more
confidence in individuals simply by changing the symbols. The problem
is, we have been independent for decades and decades, since the beginning
of this century. He [Mr Keating] had a real choice over the 1980's
as to whether we pursued economic success or economic failure. He
chose economic failure.(76)
23 March 1992 The Minister for Tourism, Alan Griffiths, said
that Australia was at a turning point and that Australians were psychologically
prepared to cut the '12 000-kilometre umbilical cord'. Mr Griffiths
also said Britain had 'cut Australia off at the knees' by joining
the European Community and he supported the attack by the Prime Minister
on its record as a war ally. On the question of why we have not had
civil war in Australia he said 'the reason why we haven't had civil
wars is that Australians are basically sensible people and we've had
differences of opinion but they have usually been over football or
things like that'.(77)
24 March 1992 The Leader of the National Party, Tim Fischer,
said that 'Keating's move to cut the gordian knot that has seen this
country evolve free of division, full of pride in its achievements
with a truly democratic government and a sense of belonging can only
mean one thing and that is he is intent on destabilising the Australian
nation...;For one who loves the beauty and craftsmanship of antique
French clocks it seems strange he cannot appreciate the civility offered
by years of tradition and refinement that has been steeped in chivalry,
democracy and freedom.'(78)
25 March 1992 English cricketers Graham Gooch and Ian Botham
walked out of the World Cup cricket final dinner in protest against
a comedy sketch by royal impersonator Gerry Connolly. The English
cricket manager said that 'We thought it entirely in poor taste for
an occasion like this.'(79)
15 March 1992 Opposition leader Dr Hewson said that he would
not object to Australia becoming a republic if it became clear that
most Australians supported the change but that the change was not
inevitable and that Australia continued to be served well by the constitutional
monarchy.(80)
29 March 1992 The Australian Republican Movement South Australian
Campaign Launch proposed:
'...;that by 1 January 2001-the first day of the 21st century and
the centenary of the proclamation of federation-Australia shall become
an independent republic.'(81)
31 March 1992 According to a Bulletin poll, 41 per cent of
Australians believed that Australia should become a republic, 45 per
cent were opposed to the change and 14 per cent were uncommitted.
These results compared with 1979 when a similar poll disclosed 31
per cent in favour, 61 per cent against and 8 per cent uncommitted.(82)
3 April 1992 The Governor-General, Bill Hayden was 'stricken
with despair' on hearing that moves had been made to ban him from
official ANZAC day ceremonies in Ipswich for making 'pro-republican
statements'.(83)
4 April 1992 Ministers in the Indonesian Government expressed
'delight' at the Prime Minister's urgings that Australia become a
more independent nation.(84)
5 April 1992 Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke wrote that:
I said myself as Prime Minister on a number of occasions that it was
inevitable and appropriate that Australia would become a republic
within the Commonwealth. Inevitable, because increasingly younger
generations of Australians, particularly for those from a non-British
background, the idea of sharing another country's head of state doesn't
make much sense. Appropriate, because our proper sense of robust national
sovereign independence is not complete until Australia does have its
own entirely separate head of state.' Mr Hawke said that he did not
believe the issues was one of 'overwhelming urgency' and that the
timing of the change to a republic should be when the reign of the
current sovereign ends.(85)
7 April 1992 The Prime Minister, Paul Keating said, referring
to Mr Hawke, 'I never heard a peep out of him about the flag or our
constitutional future when he was Prime Minister, but he's got plenty
of views now'. On the timing of the republic, the Prime Minister said
that to wait until the reign of the Queen finishes 'could be a very
long time from now.'(86)
8 April 1992 The leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator
John Coulter, told the Australian that most Democrats were
'soft Republicans'.(87)
12 April 1992 RSL members barred republican supporters from
entering their clubs on Anzac day.(88)
23 April 1992 Academic Dr John Hirst wrote that:
...;as the sensible multiculturalist recognises, our fundamental institutions
and values, which all citizens must support, are the old (and British)
ones; parliamentary government, the rule of law, civil liberties,
tolerance. As our society becomes more diverse, we need to insist
more firmly on their centrality...;A republic which disowned our political
and cultural heritage would be a pathetic and impoverished body.(89)
27 April 1992 The Prime Minister visited Kokoda. He distanced
Australia from its British links and drew attention to the significance
of the Papua-New Guinea battles.(90)
28 April 1992 The Canberra Times editorialised that:
Our constitutional set-up and the flag need to be looked at in the
light of the changing make-up of Australia's population. But the way
he (Mr Keating) has gone about it is unsavoury...;He has belittled
the role of those who served outside the Pacific in both wars. And
he has used his overseas trip as a platform to pursue his political
aims. The most appalling thing is that the strategy is working, or
more correctly being allowed to work because of the ineptness of the
Opposition's response. The Leader of the Opposition, has said that
the economic debate must come first and that Mr Keating's launch into
nationalism is a diversion. That is true. But surely we can have two
debates at the same time...;. Mr Keating would then have the harder
job. It is all very well saying change the flag and the monarchy,
but what to?(91)
28 April 1992 The Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane, Peter
Hollingworth, said that 'Rather than talking about independence, we
should be trying to pursue a policy of inter-dependence'. 'The idea
of independence is a very difficult notion, and I am not sure in the
end that that is an important thing that we should be pushing.'(92)
30 April 1992 It was reported that the ALP generally supported
changing the flag but senior members of the Government believed that
Mr Keating was moving too quickly and would urge him to set a time-table
well beyond the next election.(93)
2 May 1992 Merchant banker and lawyer, Malcolm Turnbull,
wrote that Australia deserved a national flag which unambiguously
symbolised Australia and its unique destiny as an independent nation.
He said however that while a consensus was developing on what sort
of republic Australia should become nobody had come up with a new
flag which excited popular imagination. He said '[i]n this respect,
the Prime Minister has miscued in pushing the new flag harder than
the republic'.(94)
3 May 1992 The National Party Victorian State conference
condemned the Prime Minister Mr Keating for the 'disgraceful manner
in which he is pursuing his republican aims.' Mr Fischer pledged to
fight Mr Keating 'all the way' to retain the flag.(95)
5 May 1992 An opinion poll showed that 54 per cent of people
would never want to see the flag changed, compared with 42 per cent
who favoured a change now or later. There was a reversal in relation
to a republic with 45 per cent opposed, compared with 41 per cent
in favour, which eliminated the narrow majority in favour in the previous
poll.(96)
8 May 1992 Mr Keating said that the heightened sense of Australian
identity had struck a positive chord in Indonesia and that it was
not surprising that a country like Indonesia, which had fought so
hard for its independence, should be interested in the emergence of
a more clear-cut view of Australian nationhood here. He also said
that Australian people had to have a belief in themselves to make
change occur.
By this, I mean that to seize the opportunities and assure our long-term
security, without prejudice to our predominantly British and European
origins and our continuing affections for those places, we must determine
as a people to think of Australia as a place whose history is its
own, whose traditions and values are its own, whose future is most
definitely its own.(97)
11 May 1992 A Saulwick Herald poll showed 56 percent of people
thought Australia should become a republic while 42 per cent favoured
it remaining a constitutional monarchy.(98)
14 May 1992 RSL president Brigadier Alf Garland said that
Mr Keating was 'an Irish republican bigot.'(99)
15 May 1992 The Australian Republican Movement opened a Victorian
branch with about 200 members.(100)
15 May 1992 Malcolm Turnbull said that Mr Keating had hindered
the move to a republic by calling Liberals 'bootlickers' and lickspitters'
to the British. '[O]ur battle is to win the hearts and the minds of
the Liberal and National parties because until we have their support
a referendum is going to be a doubtful proposition'.(101)
18 May 1992 At the launch of the Western Australia Branch
of the Australian Republican Movement, Mr Turnbull said that the republican
movement was too important to become the property of one political
party. He also said that the most disappointing feature of the Liberal
Party's stance on republicanism was that at least half of its leaders
supported Australia becoming a republic.(102)
25 May 1992 Former Solicitor General, Sir Maurice Byers,
said that:
the practical chance of Australia's becoming a republic in the foreseeable
future was nil, both because of the difficulties of getting party
political consensus and because of the difficulties of getting any
measures adopted by referendum. A republic was probably inevitable,
but...;important questions-not least the issue of the powers that
the president of a head of state should have and how he or she should
be elected-were rarely canvassed.(103)
2 June 1992 Academic Geoffrey Partington, writing in The
Bulletin on the monarchy, portrayed the republican debate thus:
Since the leadership change did not bring any immediate improvement
in the economy or the political fortunes of the ALP, Keating sought
an issue that might present him as both a patriot and genuine radical.
Republicanism and pom-bashing were his answers. His tactics succeeded
in the short run and he and his party have risen in the opinion polls
for months.(104)
2 June 1992 Dame Joan Sutherland pledged her full support
to 'Leadership Beyond Politics - Australians For Constitutional Monarchy.'
4 June 1992 Australians for Constitutional Monarchy held
their first public meeting at Sydney's Lower Town Hall attended by
about 450 people. The foundation council consisted of the former Chief
Justice of the High Court, Sir Harry Gibbs, the Chancellor of Sydney
University, Dame Leonie Kramer, former Sydney Lord Mayor, Mr Doug
Sutherland, the President of the NSW Court of Appeal, Justice Michael
Kirby, former Liberal Party Federal President, Sir John Atwill and
Mr Barry O'Keefe QC.(105)(106)
7 June 1992 The chairman of the Australian Republican Movement,
Mr Tom Keneally, said that an aboriginal woman would make an ideal
first President of the proposed Republic of Australia.(107)
7 June 1992 The convenor of the Republican Movement in Victoria,
Dr John Hirst, said that he wanted the Queen's Birthday holiday replaced
by Wattle Day.(108)
8 June 1992 The leader of the National Party, Tim Fischer,
challenged Australians who supported the Prime Minister's bid for
a republic and a new flag, not to take the Queen's Birthday public
holiday and to spend a day at work.(109)
8 June 1992 Professor Donald Horne said that the Queen was
no longer a relevant symbol for Australia.
Basically the problem is that Queen Elizabeth is always the Queen
of Great Britain...;She is Queen of Australia only when she comes
to Australia. If the British Government wants her to, she will make
speeches that go against Australian interest. In this sense, Australia
has a monarch some of whose activities can, in effect, be those of
a foreign agent. Queen Elizabeth is an admirable person. But by going
on pretending she is Queen of Australia, Australians place her in
a position in which she could be used as the agent of a foreign power
against the interest of Australia.(110)
10 June 1992 The Anglican Archbishop of Adelaide, Ian George,
drew a parallel between Mr Keating's push to change the flag and make
Australia a republic with the 'bread and circuses' staged by Roman
emperors to divert public attention from serious problems.(111)
10 June 1992 The Australian editorial said that the
private lives of the Prince and Princess of Wales were not remote
from Australian constitutional affairs.
The intangible factor is the esteem in which Prince Charles is held
and, more immediately, the extent to which the activities of the royal
family are undermining ongoing support for the existing constitutional
arrangements...;The dignity of Australia, its independence and the
recognition of its sovereignty will only be fully achieved when it
becomes a republic. No amount of royal harmony can change that fact.
An amount of royal disharmony may speed its recognition.(112)
26 June 1992 The Prime Minister, at the Australian Book Publishers
Awards in Sydney said that:
Visitors like John Mortimer could be forgiven for wondering why we
are so pre-occupied with questions of identity...;But it seems to
me a fundamental concern...;We have always been ambivalent about who
we are. Robert Menzies of course resolved the dilemma by saying we
were like a child...;He imagined us in our relationship with Britain
as being like a youth returning to its mother, the old family-as if
back from a spell at Timbertop, or jackerooing. Hudson (W. J. Hudson,
an historian of Australian foreign policy) uses a similar metaphor
but puts a different spin on it. When Britain formalised her withdrawal
into Europe, he (Hudson) said, Australians "felt bereft and betrayed'.
Australia was like an adult son having affairs (economically with
Japan and militarily with the United States) but still living at home
and, worse than kicking him out of the old home, mother was moving
house and not taking him with her.
The Prime Minister said
In the 1990's, without the slightest disrespect to a country for
which I have the greatest admiration, and to whose language and
institutions I am a very grateful heir, I want to see us leave home...;I
believe the Oath of Allegiance sworn by new citizens at naturalisation
ceremonies should proclaim unequivocally their loyalty to Australia
and the things we believe Australia stands for-including liberty,
tolerance, social justice-those very beliefs which underpin multiculturalism.(113)
28 June 1992 The Federal Opposition spokesman on Immigration,
Mr Phillip Ruddock, indicated that the Opposition would resist any
push by the Prime Minister to remove the reference to the Queen in
the oath of allegiance sworn by new citizens. Mr Ruddock said that
unless Australia became a republic, the oath of allegiance should
remain to the Queen as Australia's head of state. He described the
move as part of Mr Keating's 'Irish agenda' to turn Australia into
a republic.(114)
29 June 1992 The Democrats leader, Senator John Coulter,
said that he thought the Australian Democrats would take the view
that a change to the oath, like the proposal for a new flag, should
go to a plebiscite at the election.(115)
30 June 1992 The Australian editorial said that:
There is no firm reason why symbols obscuring the path of republicanism-which
is clearly an evolutionary path-cannot be removed along the way...;Unlike
the constitutional oath of allegiance sworn to the Queen by Mr Keating
and every member of the House of Representative or Senate-which would
require a national referendum to amend-the citizenship oath comes
under the Australian Citizenship Act and can be changed by the simpler
method of legislative amendment. If Parliament so wishes, then let
the Prime Minister begin to put his republican principles into practice(116)
2 July 1992 The national president of the RSL, Brigadier
Alf Garland, said the League would 'oppose to the bitter end' Mr Keating's
plans to change the flag and the oath of allegiance.(117)
8 July 1992 Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke said that:
it was inevitable that Australia would become a republic, probably
even by 2001. But I'm damned it I'm going to waste any of my time,
at this stage, getting my mind or my knickers in a knot about this
issue...;If we were a republic tomorrow, it would have no impact on
the daily welfare of the men, women and children of this country.(118)
14 July 1992 The Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, said that
the republicans wanted the constitutional system left as it was with
the exception of a change in the head of state and that this showed
that our constitutional system was in good shape.(119)
23 July 1992 At the first meeting of the Constitutional Centenary
Foundation, the Attorney-General, Michael Duffy said that:
the public should be educated about the Constitution before any serious
debate about becoming a republic. At the end of the day you are going
to have to go back to the people on many of these issues and you won't
succeed on that unless you have firstly discussion and education on
the issues and, at the end of the day, bipartisanship.(120)
29 July 1992 A debate between the republicans and the constitutional
monarchists was held at the Queen Victoria Building in Sydney and
the Sydney Morning Herald described the debate as 'fighting
in an extremely civilised manner. It may be a sign of Australian maturity.'(121)
23 August 1992 The Canberra Times editorial stated
that
The latest shenanigans from the Royal family-albeit the younger in-laws-strike
a blow at the heart of support for its retention at the head of the
Australian system of government. The photographs of the Duchess of
York cavorting semi-clad with her Texas friend which have been splashed
around the world are sadly offensive even to the most died-in-the-wool
promoter of the Royal connection.(122)
30 August 1992 At the annual conference of the Northern Territory
Country-Liberal Party in Darwin, the leader of the Liberal Party,
Dr John Hewson, and the Leader of the National Party, Tim Fischer,
warned that a republic would be used by Labor to try to centralise
power in a new office of the President of Australia.(123)
30 August 1992 The Prime Minister, Paul Keating indicated
that he did not intend to push republicanism as an issue in the federal
election and that a republic was 'years away'.(124)
30 September 1992 Mr Keating said in an interview for British
television:
I think the Queen has been regarded as entirely conscientious and
well-liked by Australians but they do wonder about the relevance of
a constitutional arrangement which relies on the Queen of Australia
being largely resident on the other side of the globe.(125)
16 October 1992 Media magnate Rupert Murdoch said that he
always had sympathy with the republican debate. He said 'I think it's
all happening. We don't have to get excited about it. Another generation,
another 20 years or so, and it'll be over.'(126)
29 October 1992 A former secretary to the Governor-General,
Sir David Smith, speaking at a conference at Parliament House said
that 'Constitutional monarchy does not have to justify its continued
existence, but rather it is up to those who wish to replace it to
provide the reasons.'(127)
1 November 1992 A poll conducted by Quadrant Research showed
that 49 per cent of people wanted the present system of Federal parliamentary
government but with an Australian head of state chosen by both Houses
of Parliament. twelve per cent favoured a change to the US system
and 37 per cent wanted to continue with the present system retaining
the Queen as head of state.(128)
14 November 1992 The Prime Minister, Mr Keating, expressed
support for changes to the Oath of Citizenship to encourage a stronger
sense of national identity. He also raised, for the first time, the
possibility of an Australian head of state. He stressed that the Government
was not pushing the issue but simply indicating that it should be
debated.(129)
18 November 1992 A reader in Law at the University of Melbourne,
Greg Craven, wrote that any proposal to convert Australia into a republic
would be attended by three main constitutional complications. The
first concerns the 'covering clauses' of the Constitution (that is
the first eight sections of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act) which contain references to the monarchy. Section 128 is expressed
to apply only to 'this Constitution' but section 9 of the Constitution
Act has the effect that 'the Constitution' only begins after the covering
clauses. There is thus an argument that the covering clauses cannot
be amended under section 128. The second concerns the nature of the
change to the Constitution. Section 128 does not permit changes that
would vary the fundamental or essential character of the Constitution
and the abolition of the monarchy would arguably be such a change.
The third obstacle is that the constitutional systems of the Commonwealth
and the States are quite separate. Australia effectively has not one
but seven monarchies.(130)
19 November 1992 At a debate on the monarchy at Sydney University
the question of religious discrimination was raised (the Act of
Settlement 1701 requires the monarch to be an Anglican.) The question
of sexual discrimination was also raised as males always supersede
females in the succession.(131)
10 December 1992 The Prince and Princess of Wales separated.
Liberal Senator Rod Kemp said that the 'royal marriage difficulties
need not affect Australia's constitutional system because the powers
of the Crown were exercised in this country by the Governor-General.
His powers are derived from the Australian Constitution, not the monarch
of the day'. Senator Schacht and Dr John Hirst argued that the stability
and continuity for which the royal family once stood no longer applied.(132)
18 December 1992 Mr Keating announced Cabinet's decision
to amend the Citizenship Act and the oath of allegiance. The new preamble
to the Act would define citizenship as a common bond involving reciprocal
rights and obligations uniting all Australians. The new oath would
be:
From this time forward I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its
people whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties
I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.
The previous oath or affirmation was to be 'faithful and bear true
allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia,
her heirs and successors according to the law, and I will faithfully
observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian
citizen.'(133)
20 December 1992 The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer,
Senator Bob McMullan, writing in the Canberra Times said:
I have long held the view, and expressed in previous articles, that
Australia should have an Australian head of state selected under an
Australian process determined by the Australian people. No independent
nation can accept less.(134)
5 January 1993 The 25th annual convention of the national
Young Liberals supported a referendum on republicanism after the next
federal election but also supported the constitutional status quo
in a series of motions supporting the monarchy, the flag and regular
tours of Australia by the monarchy.(135)
24 February 1993 Prime Minister Keating, giving the Policy
Launch Address for the 1993 Federal Election said:
It is perhaps in part because Australians are growing in confidence
that more and more of them are questioning whether it is appropriate
for Australia to have as its head of state the monarch of another
country. Many Australians-some surveys suggest a majority-believe
that we will be better able to succeed in the world with the unique
and unambiguous identity which an Australian head of state, chosen
by the Australian people, could provide. While it is far from the
most pressing matter facing the nation, it is nevertheless important
that we do not let this decade leading to the centenary of the Federation
pass without advancing the debate. To do this we will set up a broadly
based committee of eminent Australians, including representatives
of the States, to develop a discussion paper which considers the options
for a Federal Republic of Australia. Any options developed by the
committee would not seek to change our way of government; only to
have an Australian, chosen by Australians, as Australia's head of
state. I would like to extend an invitation to the Opposition to participate
in the workings of this committee. It would be the intention that
as a result of this committee's deliberations and the public discussion
that would follow, the Australian people would be in a position to
decide by referendum later in the decade whether Australia should
become a Republic by the year 2001.(136)
25 February 1993 National Party leader Tim Fischer said that
Mr Keating's announcement was a last ditch effort to distract the
public and that Mr Keating 'will not be in government when this issue
needs to be addressed in three weeks' time.'(137)
25 February 1992 Opposition leader Dr John Hewson said that
the Keating committee was unnecessary because former High Court judge
and Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen already chaired a body examining
possible changes to the constitution and that the republic was not
an issue but a distraction.(138)
26 February 1993 Professor George Winterton wrote that the
proposal for an Australian republic raised four main questions: What
constitutional change would be required? How should the president
be chosen? What powers should the president have? What should be done
at State level?(139)
1 March 1993 The 'Squidgy' tape was played on Australian
television.
4 March 1993 The Leader of the Opposition, Dr John Hewson,
said that the Opposition would not stand in the way of a groundswell
of opinion to make Australia a republic but warned that a shift to
republicanism would involve more fundamental changes to government
than so far discussed. He said that he was 'a strong defender of open
and public debate on all these issues because I think they are very
important. They're not the preserve of a politician to change...;because
in the end it has got to be the decision of the people.'(140)
13 March 1993 The Federal Election was won by the Australian
Labor Party.
16 March 1993 The Prime Minister, Paul Keating, said that
he had put his vision of a republic to voters and been endorsed and
that he would now move ahead with his plans for a referendum to sever
constitutional links with Britain and create a republic by 2001.(141)
20 March 1993 Former NSW Premier Nick Greiner called on the
Liberal Party to abandon the monarchy as an 'article of faith' and
take a pro-active role in leading the republican debate. Mr Howard
said that the Coalition had erred during the election campaign in
ignoring republicanism.(142)
22 March 1993 Northern Territory Chief Minister Marshall
Perron supported calls for a Liberal Party debate over moves to make
Australia a Republic.(143)
27 March 1993 Dr Hewson said that he did not think that a
republic was inevitable but that he thought that the debate was inevitable.
It's a debate we have to have. What I want is a specific proposal
that I can express a view on. Right now, where there is no alternative
proposal...;I strongly support the debate about the Republic and Australia,
but it's up to the Government to now tell us exactly what he's got
in mind.(144)
28 March 1993 NSW Premier John Fahey said that 'It is inevitable
that Australia would become a republic' and he proposed a national
constitutional convention-to be called by Prime Minister Keating,
to decide the issues this year. Mr Fahey's remarks on the issue were
supported by Young Liberals at the NSW Liberal State Council meeting
in Sydney.(145)
29 March 1993 Northern Territory Chief Minister Marshall
Perron said that he had sought legal advice on the likely legal and
political implications for the Territory in a new republic. He said
that the community needed to embrace the republican debate and discuss
directions for the Territory if republicanism was pursued by the Labor
Federal Government. He described himself as a 'fencesitter', one who
would neither support nor condemn the republican push.(146)
29 March 1993 National Party leader Tim Fischer said he remained
a supporter of a constitutional monarchy but that if the people chose
a republic, 'I'm an Australian first and I would accept that.'(147)
29 March 1993 The Opposition spokesman for Industrial Relations,
John Howard, said that he would accept a republic if Australians voted
for it although he was personally unconvinced of the need to move
to a republic.(148)
29 March 1993 The NSW National Party Leader, Wal Murray,
said support for the republic debate was repugnant and that he would
vigorously oppose any move for a republic.(149)
29 March 1993 Western Australia Liberal Premier Richard
Court, said 'John Fahey is entitled to his views. Western Australians
are always suspicious of the thrust taken by the major states of Victoria
and NSW because they have the most influence in our Federal system.'
He also said that he was willing to go to a constitutional convention
and that 'You wouldn't want to throw away a system that many other
countries in the world would give anything to have in place.'(150)
30 March 1993 Queensland Labor Premier Wayne Goss
announced plans to remove references to the Queen and the Crown from
all state oaths, affirmations and legislation.(151)
30 March 1993 Tasmania's Liberal Premier, Ray Groom, said
it was inevitable Australia would become a republic.(152)
30 March 1993 Victoria's Liberal Premier, Jeff Kennett, said
that the republic was a 10th order issue.(153)
30 March 1993 South Australia's Labor Premier, Lynn Arnold,
said that Australia should already be a republic.(154)
31 March 1993 A motion was passed in the NSW Lower House
to:
endorse the Premier's public statement concerning the inevitability
of an Australian republic and support community consultation and the
holding of constitutional conventions as proposed by the Premier prior
to the consideration by the Australian people, through a referendum,
of any change to the form and structure of the constitution of Australia.(155)
31 March 1993 South Australia's Opposition leader, Dean Brown,
became the first Liberal Party leader to declare his personal support
for Australia becoming a republic.(156)
1 April 1993 Opposition spokesman for Industrial Relations
John Howard issued a news release which said:
Gough Whitlam wants a future President of Australia to be elected
by the same procedure which chooses the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the President of the Senate. That's the system which gave us Leo
McLeay! ...; If the Whitlam formula is adopted we could end up with
a party hack but without the constraints now applying to the office
of Governor-General.(157)
13 April 1993 The Democrat's Senator Cheryl Kernot said that:
Australia must 'seize the day' of debate on any move towards republicanism
and accompany it with major constitutional reform. The existing Commonwealth
constitution is rigid outmoded and essentially undemocratic...;Whether
or not Australia becomes a republic, constitutional reform must occur
for the protection of all Australians from excessively literalist
constitutional interpretations.(158)
15 April 1993 The Australian Democrats leader, Senator John
Coulter, warned that Australians should not rush into republicanism
by setting arbitrary deadlines. 'A republic is both inevitable and
desirable,' he said. 'But our Prime Minister is giving us the bum's
rush, setting an arbitrary deadline in 2001 and talking of referendum
questions as if the need to redefine our constitutional status were
dire. It is not.'(159)
27 April 1993 A former Victorian Liberal Premier, Sir Rupert
Hamer acknowledged that a republican Australia was both inevitable
and, in a minimal form, desirable and agreed to become an adviser
to the Republican Movement.(160)
26 April 1993 On PM, the deputy leader of the Liberal
Party, Dr Michael Wooldridge, said that the Coalition did not rule
out the possibility of bipartisan support for the Prime Minister's
eminent persons' committee which will consider the republican issue,
but that it was unlikely. Journalist Ellen Fanning also reported that
the National Party leader, Tim Fischer had said that the Coalition
should be cautious about participating in the eminent persons' committee.(161)
28 April 1993 The establishment of a Republic Advisory Committee
was announced by Prime Minister Keating in his H. V. Evatt lecture.
The committee's terms of reference were to examine the issues and
develop an options paper describing the minimum constitutional changes
necessary to achieve a viable federal republic of Australia, maintaining
the effect of current conventions and principles of government, including
the relationship between the Commonwealth and the States.'(162)
The committee was asked to address the following matters:
- The removal of all references to the monarch in the constitution.
- The need for and creation of a new office of head of state and
consideration of what the office might be called.
- The provisions for the appointment and termination of appointment
of the head of state including the method of selection and appointment,
eg
selection and appointment by the government of the day
selection by the government and endorsement by both Houses
of Parliament
appointment by an 'electoral college' comprising representatives
of various parliaments
appointment following election by the Federal Parliament
popular election.
- How the powers of the new head of state and their exercise can
be made subject to the same conventions and principles which apply
to the powers of the Governor-General.
- The nature of the amendments to the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act required to implement the options.
- The implications for the States.
- Other aspects which arise in the Committee's deliberations and
consultations providing they are relevant to the overall objective
in the opening paragraph above.(163)
The chairman of the committee was lawyer Malcolm Turnbull and the
six other members were former NSW Premier Nick Greiner; SBS presenter
Mary Kostakidis; chairwoman of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island
Commission Lois O'Donoghue; former Hawke Cabinet Minister Susan Ryan;
and two academics, Dr John Hirst and Professor George Winterton. Two
future members of the committee were to represent the States and Territories
and the Opposition Leader, Dr Hewson, was invited to nominate a representative.(164)
28 April 1993 A new ministerial oath removing reference to
the Queen was taken for the first time at the swearing in of the Attorney-General,
Michael Lavarch. Mr Lavarch promised to 'well and truly serve the
Commonwealth of Australia', instead of 'well and truly serve Her Majesty
the Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law'.(165)
29 April 1993 The Leader of the Opposition, Dr John Hewson,
responded to the Prime Minister's announcement of the Republic Advisory
Committee. He said that he formally committed the Liberal Party to
a very active role in the debate but that it was important to recognise
that the Liberal platform was committed to constitutional monarchy.
It says:
Australian Liberalism means support for the constitutional monarchy
and freedom for all under the rule of law. It supports the constitution
not as a lifeless record of the compact of federation but as a living
framework capable of development by discussion and consent.
He announced that that item would be on the agenda at the Federal
Council meeting planned for early August to start the process of
debate within the Party and he urged all of the party to play an
active part in the debate.
Dr Hewson said that the Liberal Party could not support the Keating
committee on the basis of its composition, its agenda or its deadlines
and that he would not be nominating a representative. He denied that
the committee was a genuine attempt at bipartisanship and said that
it was a blatant political exercise. Dr Hewson also said that 'I have
no doubt, given the shift of community attitudes and opinion, that
the hardline monarchist position is out of touch with the realities
of Australia today'.(166)
29 April 1993 The leader of the National Party, Tim Fischer,
said, by way of formal response to the Prime Minister's speech on
the republic, that the Parliamentary National Party, the Victorian
Conference and the Federal Management meeting of the National Party
had all discussed the issue in detail and that 'All three key organisations
of the National Party reaffirmed their strong support for a progressive
constitutional monarchy.'(167)
30 April 1993 The National Party urged all Australians to
think very carefully before tampering with the constitution and said
that it would be playing a very active part in the debate about the
republic. The National Party said that the 'so-called minimalist position'
was far more radical than it may seem as the constitution, literally
read, gives very wide powers to the Governor-General and only convention
restricted the effective powers of the Governor-General. The leader
of the National Party also warned that any referendum must be carried
by all six States as all States would have to adopt consequential
changes and amendments. If a particular State voted 'NO' the State
Government and the Parliament would face a very real dilemma.
(W)e have a system under the Constitutional Monarchy which works extremely
well. It is an important factor behind the tolerance and cohesion
which have always been a hallmark of Australian society. To argue
the case for a Republicanism, means arguing the case that it is a
better alternative.(168)
30 April 1993 The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Richard
Goodhew expressed cautious support for Australia becoming a republic.(169)
30 April 1993 The former leaders of the youth wings of the
Liberal Party and the ALP made a joint appeal to Mr Keating to include
young people in the republican debate.(170)
1 May 1993 The new leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator
Cheryl Kernot, attacked as a 'cop-out' the minimalist position advocated
by the Prime Minister and called for the consideration of questions
such as the role of the States in a republic, the prior occupation
of the continent by Aborigines and the reserve powers of the Governor-General.(171)
1 May 1993 Sir Ninian Stephen said that the Constitutional
Centenary Foundation would not prepare a specific options paper on
a republic for the Federal Opposition, but the Foundation would examine
the republic issue as part of a broader study on constitutional change
in Australia. The inquiry could take up to four years and would be
wider than the more narrowly focused Republican Advisory Committee.(172)
5 May 1993 A Liberal Party committee comprising Dr John Hewson,
John Howard, Andrew Peacock, Rod Kemp, Senator Robert Hill, Daryl
Williams and Andrew Robb was established to review the Liberal platform.
The National Party announced that it would not be represented on the
committee.(173)
5 May 1993 The Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett said that
he wanted Professor Geoffrey Blainey to represent the States on the
Prime Minister's Republic Advisory Committee.(174)
5 May 1993 An AGB McNair survey found that 83 per cent of
Australians want to elect a president themselves, 53 per cent believed
a future head of state should have a role with greater power, 38 per
cent wanted the head of state to have a mainly ceremonial role and
nine per cent did not know.(175)
5 May 1993 Mr Kennett told Parliament that while he privately
believed Australia should remain a constitutional monarchy, it was
important for the Victorian community to participate in the republican
debate.(176)
7 May 1993 John Howard said that he would not 'commit suicide'
if Australia becomes a republic tomorrow. 'I am an Australian above
anything else. I always have been and I will die being an Australian
before anything else. But that is not really the issue. It is a question
of what is the better form of Government for the Australian people'.(177)
13 May 1993 The Republic Advisory Committee issued a 15 page
issues paper designed to stimulate comment.(178)
21 May 1993 The Northern Territory Legislative Assembly held
a formal debate on republicanism but no vote was taken on the issue.
Most speakers supported republicanism of some kind (with the exception
of MLA's Fred Finch and Rick Setter) but a motion supporting the Prime
Minister's initiative failed on party lines.(179)
25 May 1993 The Prime Minister announced that Namoi Dougall
and Dr Glyn Davis were appointed as the State/Territory Government
representatives on the Republic Advisory Committee. All States and
Territories were also invited to submit comments to the Committee
in response to an Issues Paper released earlier in the month.(180)
14 May 1993 Dr Hewson told Parliament that 'key members of
the ALP wanted to abolish the States and the Senate and water down
the reserve powers of the head of state, not just replace the Queen
with an Australian.'(181)
17 May 1993 Dr Hewson said the Federal Government would want
to take Australia out of the Commonwealth if voters supported a republic.(182)
27 May 1993 Opposition frontbencher, Dr David Kemp, said
that the Prime Minister's headlong rush toward a republic was driven
by an obsessive hatred of the British origins of Australia's political
institutions, law and language and risked dividing the nation. 'We
do not need to deny our British heritage and its symbols in order
to move beyond it into the future.'(183)
27 May 1993 The federal Liberal Party deputy leader, Dr Michael
Wooldridge, said he suspected that Australia would become a republic
during his lifetime but rejected that it was inevitable.(184)
28 May 1993 The inaugural meeting of the Republic Advisory
Committee took place on 27 May 1993. The full committee was expected
to meet four times before September when it was to deliver a report
on options for a republic to the Government. Several public meetings
were to be held in capital cities and country towns.(185)
4 June 1993 Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy appointed
Tony Abbott, a former advisor to Dr Hewson, as its salaried executive
director.(186)
5 June 1993 A former High Court Chief Justice, Sir Harry
Gibbs, said that once the Office of President was established it would
inevitably be politicised and that this would create a series of constitutional
dangers, including the danger that the nation might proceed down the
road to dictatorship.(187)
7 June 1993 The Republic Advisory Committee advised that
they would visit Brisbane, Townsville, Cairns, Toowoomba. Hobart,
Launceston, Melbourne, Geelong, Albury, Perth, Bunbury, Kalgoorlie,
Port Hedland, Darwin, Alice Springs, Whyalla, Adelaide, Canberra,
Wagga, Tamworth, Lismore, Newcastle and Wollongong. Consultation would
include public hearings wherever possible.(188)
9 June 1993 The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Gareth
Evans, assured the Commonwealth Secretary-General that an Australian
republic would not leave the Commonwealth.(189)
13 June 1993 The Australian Republican Movement and the Australian
Conservation Foundation launched a campaign to have the Queen's Birthday
weekend abolished in favour of a national 'Wattle Day' in September.(190)
15 June 1993 The Leader of the Opposition, Dr John Hewson,
said that support for a republic would depend on the Prime Minister
Paul Keating and other advocates of constitutional change providing
clear evidence existing arrangements were flawed, inappropriate and
unworkable. He said the nation's freedom, independence and stability
had to be protected and the onus put firmly on 'the proponents of
constitutional change that they will not end up throwing the baby
out with the bath water.'(191)
18 June 1993 The Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane, Peter Hollingworth,
warned that Mr Keating's republican push risked dividing the nation
and warned of the potential for providing a president with an undue
amount of power. He also urged Australians to question whether republicanism
was part of a political agenda.(192)
19 June 1993 A former Premier of NSW, Nick Greiner, warned
the Liberal Party that 'if we go to the 1996 election saying 'vote
for us, we will continue to ensure that there is no move to a republic',
then in my view that is a large step towards losing the election.
He said a republic was supported by at least two Liberal Premiers
and a significant section of the parliamentary Liberal Party.(193)
20 June 1993 At the NSW National Party State Conference in
Wagga Wagga, Tim Fischer said:
The Republic debate...;is on the national agenda and I have been very
proud of the National Party's steadfast and resolute role. I am confident
that the National Party will continue to provide a sheet anchor role
in this debate, it our duty to do so. We as a party know where we
stand on this issue. We oppose Keating's republic.(194)
22 June 1993 The President of the WA Liberal Party, Bill
Hassell, told the Bulletin:
that he was personally committed not to the concept of nationhood
or one indissoluble Australia but to a belief that WA would be far
better off in a dozen ways if it was separate...;It need not mean
a state of war with the eastern states It could be a perfectly co-operative
relationship like the one Australia has with New Zealand.(195)
23 June 1993 A former Premier of NSW, Nick Greiner warned
fellow members of the Liberal Party that they risked handing Prime
Minister Keating a 'powerful weapon at the next election if they continued
to oppose a republic'. He said that it was open to Senator Bronwyn
Bishop, John Howard, and Peter Reith to take a 'short-term political
win' by killing off the republic but that it would be a 'pyrrhic'
victory.(196)
30 June 1993 The leader of the Opposition, Dr John Hewson,
in an interview with Peter Couchman, said that it was not a mistake
not to have joined the Turnbull Committee as that was not a 'bipartisan
attempt to deal with a difficult issue' and that the so called minimal
approach was a furphy.(197)
2 July 1993 Australians for Constitutional Monarchy held
a meeting at Sydney Town Hall to commemorate the centenary of the
Central Federation League. The speakers were Sir Harry Gibbs, Dame
Leonie Kramer and Lloyd Waddy QC.(198)
5 July 1993 A Victorian federal MP, Lindsay Tanner, of the
left wing of the ALP, rejected Mr Keating's minimalist approach and
said that the 'focus of the Left's position in this debate should
be the assertion of the principles of democracy-not the nationalist
crusade for independence from Britain.' He also said that the States
were outdated and that there should be a Bill of Rights.(199)
8 July 1993 Opposition spokesman on Industrial Relations,
John Howard, addressed the 46th Annual Council of the Australian Liberal
Students' Federation. He said:
My opposition to an Australian republic is a happy amalgam of personal
conviction and political judgement...;By all means those in the Liberal
Party who genuinely believe a republic would be in Australia's long
term interests should argue their case both internally and externally.(200)
8 July 1993 Blinky Bill was officially unveiled at a ceremony
to mark the second anniversary of the Australian Republican Movement
as the movements national treasure, standard bearer and icon.(201)
10 July 1993 The Australian Conservation Foundation said
that the Republic Advisory Committee should examine a wide range of
constitutional reforms including the issue of State and federal rights
in relation to the environment.(202)
10 July 1993 The Liberal Party's Federal Executive 'killed
off moves to change the party's constitution, which supports the monarchy.'(203)
11 July 1993 The Federal President of the Young Liberals,
Trent Zimmerman, said that Liberals should be free to follow their
consciences on whether they supported the push for an Australian republic.
The Young Liberal leaders drafted a resolution to be put to the Party's
Federal Council meeting in August proposing that the republican issue
be a conscience matter for members.(204)
14 July 1993 The Australian Chamber of Commerce chief executive
said that the republican debate should be widened to include state
and federal powers in relation to industrial relations, educations,
job training, immigration and land rights.(205)
19 July 1993 The Australians for Constitutional Monarchy,
in its submission to the Prime Minister's Republican Advisory Committee,
said that there were strong reasons to think that a referendum would
be ineffective to cut links with the crown and to turn Australia into
a republic as the preamble to the Constitution declares that the purpose
of the document is to establish 'one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth
under the crown.' The submission argued that the federal compact might
not survive the elimination of this fundamental condition and that
minimal change was not viable.(206)
19 July 1993 Seventy-nine per cent of Australians questioned
said that they wanted a republican head of State to be elected by
popular vote.(207)
21 July 1993 An Age editorial said that the constitutional
changes required for Australia to become a republic would not be minimal
and that those Australians who supported a move to a republic needed
to understand this.(208)
22 July 1993 The Premier of Western Australia, Richard Court,
announced that within a month he would appoint a committee of eminent
West Australians to examine the ramifications for WA of the Federal
Government's push to a republic. He said that members would be drawn
from different sides of politics and different age groups.(209)
25 July 1993 The Federal Government instructed the Governor-General
not to forward any more requests to use the prefix 'royal' to Buckingham
Palace for approval.(210)
25 July 1993 The Nationals' Senate leader, Ron Boswell, told
delegates at the National Party's State Conference in Brisbane that:
If Paul Keating has his way, Australia will soon have a new Constitution,
giving all real power to the national government. The States will
be little more than administrators of policies set in Canberra-if
they exist at all. He said that the National Party wants nothing to
do with the Prime Minister's push to make Australia a republic.(211)
26 July 1993 Delegates to the Victorian and the Western Australian
branches of the Liberal Party, at their annual conferences, passed
resolutions rejecting the republic.(212)
30 July 1993 Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett, in an address
to the Samuel Griffith Society in Melbourne entitled 'The Crown and
the States', said that section 128 of the Federal Constitution was
unsuited to the task of removing the monarchy because 'The Constitution'
was not an Act but clause 9 of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act 1900. Thus 'without some imaginative interpretation' section
128 might amend 'the Constitution' but not the covering clauses of
the Act - clauses 1 to 8. Since the passing of the Australia Acts
1986 the United Kingdom could not alter those provisions and amendment
would require the unanimous participation of State Parliaments. A
second difficulty was that the Crown was implicit in the constitution
and it was arguable that to remove the Crown was not to amend the
constitution but to change it for another and that this could not
be done by section 128. The third legal barrier concerned the position
of State Constitutions and State Governors.
31 July 1993 Prime Minister Keating, in a speech at the Corowa
Shire Council Centenary Dinner at the Corowa RSL Club said 'I am for
a republic. Not because I am against Britain-I like Britain very much...;Nor
am I against the British monarch...;Nor am I against the British Commonwealth
of Nations...;Nor am I for the republic because I am against the States...;I
am for the republic not for what I am against, but what I am for;
not for what a republic will throw away, but for what a republic can
deliver: It can deliver a new sense of unity and national pride in
which Australians of this and future generations can share...;In the
end, as with Federation, it will be the people of Australia who decide.'
1 August 1993 The leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator
Cheryl Kernot, said there were valid arguments for abolishing the
States and replacing them with regional governments and that the Democrats
were setting up a Task Force to examine possible models for a two-tier
system of government. Senator Kernot also said that the Constitutional
debate should be widened to include a Bill of Rights, appropriate/democratic
electoral systems and the role of Upper Houses, especially the right
to block supply.(213)
9 August 1993 A Saulwick Age Poll found that in the
four months since the last poll, support for the monarchy had gone
up four points to 34 per cent. Support for Australia becoming a republic
dropped correspondingly four points to 62 per cent.(214)
16 August 1993 The Australian Republican Movement submission
to the Republic Advisory Committee said that
All references to the monarch must be removed from the Australian
Constitution.
The term president should be used for the new, non-executive head
of State, who should be separate from the government.
The only qualification for appointment should be Australian citizenship.
The president should be elected by a two-thirds majority of both
Houses of Parliament.
The reserve powers of the president should be codified.
The future of the Governors should be decided by each State.
The Constitution should be rewritten in plain English.(215)
17 August 1993 The NSW Young Liberal Movement said that 'Young
Liberals, as young Australians, see our nation's future as a republic'
and that 'Our Constitution must recognise Australia's identity into
the 21st century and beyond.' They said that they hoped that 'the
parliamentary party will now reconsider its position and support the
republic'.(216)
28 August 1993 The NSW Treasurer, Peter Collins, said it
was Australia's destiny to become a republic. 'Australians should
be embarrassed by the "distant devotion of Anglophiles" to the British
monarchy, Mr Collins said. The rest of the world must find it bizarre
that Australians were resisting their "natural and inevitable destiny"
to form a republic.'(217)
30 August 1993 The Liberal Party Federal Council refused
to allow party members a conscience vote on the republic and said
that:
it had confidence in Australia's existing constitutional system, but
that no Australian institution was immutable. While entering into
the debate constructively we are totally opposed to the hidden agenda
that Labor has in supporting the move to a republic, including its
long-term plans to undermine the power of the states, to abolish the
Senate, change the flag, and eliminate the reserve power of the Governor-General,
the motion declared.(218)
30 August 1993 Mr Keating said that he was not interested
in becoming president. 'It's a position I would never accept,' he
said. 'Having been Prime Minister, it would not be right to look over
another PM's shoulder. Such delusions would only compromise my effectiveness
in trying to spirit this change through.'(219)
30 August 1993 Author Tom Keneally, actor Kym Wilson and
designer Jenny Kee 'launched' the wattle as an Australian Republican
Movement symbol in the Royal Botanic Gardens.(220)
31 August 1993 The ACTU congress supported the Federal Government's
push for Australia to become a republic and called for unions to play
an active role in the republican debate.(221)
7 September 1993 On the eve of Prime Minister Keating's visit
to Britain, senior British sources made it clear that the republican
debate was a matter for Australia and that they hoped the visit would
strengthen ties between the two countries.(222)
9 September 1993 The Labor Premier of South Australia, Lynn
Arnold, announced the State Government's support for a Republic of
Australia and support for a republican system in the State.(223)
13 September 1993 The Governor-General was interviewed by
former Prime Minister Bob Hawke and asked about whether the way the
position of President was filled would have 'a considerable significance
on the likely discharge of the position?' Mr Hayden replied:
Absolutely. I will risk my arm by going further as Governor-General,
and say this: the present system works well. It allows us to have
stable government in this country because the head of state is aware
of the restraints under which he must function. They are understood
all round and they have worked since Federation quite effectively.
If we move away from that and there is no restraint, then my apprehension
would be that we could go through periods-intense periods sometimes-of
quite unstable government. Now I am sure that the people who are interested
at a policy making level in the direction of a Republic, are aware
of this because it is obvious. But there is a potential obstruction
to transferring the system from what it is now, to the same sort of
system with a President as head of state, appointed in the same way
as now. And that is that overwhelmingly the opinion polls show that
the public-between 70 and 80 per cent of them, which is much higher
than those who want a Republic-want to select a President themselves.
That is inherently a problem.(224)
15 September 1993 A survey of federal parliamentarians found
that 66 per cent favoured a republic, including 98 per cent of the
ALP and 26 per cent of the Coalition. The survey also recorded 60
per cent of voters in all States supported a republic including a
| 
