Background Paper 11 1997-98
The Recent Republic Debate-A Chronology: 1989-1998
(update of Background Paper No. 9 dated 25 June 1996)
Carolyne Hide
Consultant, Law and Bills Digest Group
25 June 1996
Karen Davis
Law and Bills Digest Group
Ian Ireland
Law and Bills Digest Group
2 February 1998
Contents
An Introduction
Ready Reference:
The Recent Republic Debate-A Chronology
Endnotes
This is a revised and updated version of a paper prepared
by Carolyne Hide for the Parliamentary Research Service in 1996. Its publication
reflects ongoing interest in the republic debate and is timed for release
during the Constitutional Convention being held at Old Parliament House,
Canberra, from 2 to 13 February 1998.
Until mid 1997, the republic debate had 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 Justices Sir Harry Gibbs and Sir Anthony Mason
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 among others. 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.) However, other participants
have gained greater prominence with the passage of time and, in particular,
since the start of campaigning for election to the Constitutional Convention.
At the time of writing, the future of the debate remains
unclear with republicans securing handsome majorities in most States and
Territories in the Convention ballot but with no single republican alternative
having emerged. Direct popular election of the President enjoys widespread
community support amongst those favouring a republic but is less well
regarded by those with more day to day experience in professional politics.
A number of interesting alternatives to popular election have been canvassed,
including options which do not give an exclusive or pre-eminent role to
the Commonwealth Parliament.
The Constitutional Convention also opens with a measure
of disagreement as to whether the Convention itself should canvass a range
of issues extending beyond the appointment and removal of the head of
state. Opinion is divided as to whether the Convention will prove 'a defining
moment' or 'an expensive fizzer'.
The chronology is, like the earlier version, intended
as a working tool and an aid for imperfect memories. There is no intention
to push a particular view or argue either the republican or the monarchist
cases. The reflecting a broad ranging and lively public debate, the collection
is a potpourri of factual material, comment and interesting and
speculation.
The compilers recognise that some readers may query the
inclusion of some items and the exclusion of others. As comprehensive
coverage is not possible (and probably not desirable), any such chronology
is somewhat idiosyncratic and inevitably incomplete. Hopefully however,
no major 'milestones' in the ongoing public debate have been missed. If
an explanation is needed as to why this recent history has been set out
in such detail, one can do no better than to quote the compiler of the
first edition:
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 material that I realised how quickly
I had forgotten how far the debate had moved.(1)
Ready Reference:
For those wanting to follow the remarks of a particular
individual or organisation, there is an index at the back of the paper
which cross-references commentators and page references.
Accuracy:
Where possible, the text of published press reports relied
on here have been checked for accuracy.
16 February 1989 Bill Hayden, described by the media
as fiercely republican, was sworn in as Governor-General of Australia.(2)
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.(3)
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.(4)
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 1991 The 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.(5)
26 June 1991 The Western Australian Premier, Dr
Carmen Lawrence, supported Australia becoming a republic.(6)
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.(7)
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.(8)
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.(9)
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.'(10)
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.'(11)
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.(12)
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.'(13)
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'.(14)
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.(15)
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.(16)
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.'(17)
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.'(18)
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'.(19)
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.'(20)
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.(21)
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.(22)
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?(23)
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'.(24)
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.(25)
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.'(26)
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.'(27)
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.(28)
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.(29)
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.(30)
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.'(31)
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?'(32)
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'(33)
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.'(34)
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.'(35)
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.(36)
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.(37)
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.(38)
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.(39)
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.(40)
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.(41)
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.'(42)
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.'(43)
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.'(44)
26 February 1992 Prime Minister Paul Keating was
criticised in the British press for putting his arm around the Queen.(45)
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.'(46)
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.(47)
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.'(48)
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.(49)
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.(50)
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.(51)
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.'(52)
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. (53)
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.'(54)
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.(55)
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.(56)
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.'(57)
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.(58)
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.(59)
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.(60)
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.(61)
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'.(62)
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.'(63)
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.(64)
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.'(65)
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.(66)
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.(67)
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.(68)
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.(69)
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.(70)
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.'(71)
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.(72)
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'.(73)
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.(74)
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.(75)
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.(76)
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.(77)
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'.(78)
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.'(79)
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.'(80)
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.(81)
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.'(82)
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.(83)
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'.(84)
4 April 1992 Ministers in the Indonesian Government
expressed 'delight' at the Prime Minister's urgings that Australia become
a more independent nation.(85)
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.(86)
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.'(87)
8 April 1992 The leader of the Australian Democrats,
Senator John Coulter, told the Australian that most Democrats were
'soft Republicans'.(88)
12 April 1992 RSL members barred republican supporters
from entering their clubs on Anzac day.(89)
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.(90)
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.(91)
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?(92)
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.'(93)
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.(94)
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'.(95)
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.(96)
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.(97)
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.(98)
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.(99)
14 May 1992 RSL president Brigadier Alf Garland
said that Mr Keating was 'an Irish republican bigot.'(100)
15 May 1992 The Australian Republican Movement
opened a Victorian branch with about 200 members.(101)
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'.(102)
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.(103)
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.(104)
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.(105)
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.(106)
(107)
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.(108)
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.(109)
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.(110)
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.(111)
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.(112)
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.(113)
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.(114)
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.(115)
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.(116)
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(117)
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.(118)
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.(119)
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.(120)
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.(121)
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.'(122)
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.(123)
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.(124)
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'.(125)
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.(126)
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.'(127)
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.'(128)
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.(129)
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.(130)
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.(131)
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.(132)
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.(133)
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.'(134)
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.(135)
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.(136)
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.(137)
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.'(138)
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.(139)
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?(140)
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.'(141)
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.(142)
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.(143)
22 March 1993 Northern Territory Chief Minister
Marshall Perron supported calls for a Liberal Party debate over moves
to make Australia a Republic.(144)
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.(145)
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.(146)
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.(147)
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.'(148)
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.(149)
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.(150)
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.'(151)
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.(152)
30 March 1993 Tasmania's Liberal Premier, Ray
Groom, said it was inevitable Australia would become a republic.(153)
30 March 1993 Victoria's Liberal Premier, Jeff
Kennett, said that the republic was a 10th order issue.(154)
30 March 1993 South Australia's Labor Premier,
Lynn Arnold, said that Australia should already be a republic.(155)
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.(156)
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.(157)
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.(158)
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.(159)
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.'(160)
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.(161)
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.(162)
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.'(163)
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.(164)
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.(165)
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'.(166)
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'.(167)
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.'(168)
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.(169)
30 April 1993 The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney,
Richard Goodhew expressed cautious support for Australia becoming a republic.(170)
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.(171)
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.(172)
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.(173)
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.(174)
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.(175)
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.(176)
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.(177)
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'.(178)
13 May 1993 The Republic Advisory Committee issued
a 15 page issues paper designed to stimulate comment.(179)
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.(180)
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.(181)
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.'(182)
17 May 1993 Dr Hewson said the Federal Government
would want to take Australia out of the Commonwealth if voters supported
a republic.(183)
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.'(184)
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.(185)
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.(186)
4 June 1993 Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy
appointed Tony Abbott, a former advisor to Dr Hewson, as its salaried
executive director.(187)
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.(188)
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.(189)
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.(190)
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.(191)
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.'(192)
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.(193)
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.(194)
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.(195)
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.(196)
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.(197)
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.(198)
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.(199)
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.(200)
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.(201)
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.(202)
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.(203)
10 July 1993 The Liberal Party's Federal Executive
'killed off moves to change the party's constitution, which supports the
monarchy.'(204)
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.(205)
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.(206)
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.(207)
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. (208)
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.(209)
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.(210)
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.(211)
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.(212)
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.(213)
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 |