News
ARM RELEASES
ARM MEDIA RELEASE
April 2008
ARM WELCOMES 2020 SUMMIT RECOMMENDATION:
NOW LET’S GET MOVING!
The Australian Republican Movement today welcomed the recommendation from the 2020 Summit calling for a plebiscite on the issue of whether Australia should become a republic followed by a referendum.
“This recommendation for an Australian Republic accords broadly with the Australian Republican Movement’s roadmap to a republic. The 2020 Summit has endorsed a good process on how to best achieve a republic”, said Major General Mike Keating, Chair of the Australian Republican Movement.
“We note the enthusiastic support for an Australian republic from all the participants in the Summit – not just those who addressed the governance questions. The republic was one of the top-ranked ideas at the Summit. We also note that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd recognised this groundswell of support.
“The ARM therefore urges the government to commit to a process and a timetable. There is no reason why we cannot have a plebiscite on whether Australia wishes to become a republic concurrent with our next federal election in 2010.
“During the lead up to the plebiscite there needs to be broad community engagement and education to ensure that all Australians are fully involved. We need to have a serious and genuine debate during which Australians can have a calm, thorough and constructive discussion about our republic. This consultation should be a unifying national experience – not an exercise in establishing 'winners’ and 'losers’.
“The 2020 Summit has made it clear that the republic is a priority for our nation and the work necessary to achieve this great national goal should begin as soon as possible this year. This work should progress together with the other identified priorities and not be downgraded as being of a lesser priority. The ARM looks forward to working with the community and government to make an Australian republic a reality”, concluded Mike Keating.
21 April 2008
Further comments: Mike Keating (ARM National Chair) 0412 337 137
Peter van Vliet (ARM Media Liaison) 0417 489 226
ARM MEDIA
RELEASE
May 2008
POLL SHOWS REPUBLICAN MAJORITY
The Australian Republican Movement
today noted the Roy Morgan poll which shows that more Australians support a
republic than are against even if they are only offered one republican model.
The poll asked people whether they
want a republic with a directly elected
president (only) and shows 46% of Australians support this model compared
to 42% against.
Even
this poll, which sidelines many republicans, shows that republican Australians
are in the majority. This follows on from a recent Sun Herald/Taverner poll
that shows 69% of Australians want a republic now or when the Queen abdicates,”
said Australian Republican Movement Chair, Major General Mike Keating.
“It’s
simply wrong to use this poll which is highly skewed towards one particular
republican model to suggest support for an Australian republic is declining.
Despite nearly a decade of little public debate about the republican question
more Australians are in favour than against a republic - even when they are
asked about just one model”, Major General Keating said.
The
Australia 2020
Summit
showed that there is a groundswell of support to make the formal move to full
sovereignty under an Australian republic. Similarly, at the recent National
Schools’ Constitutional Convention, held in Canberra 29 April to 1 May 2008 and
focussed on the republic question, delegates voted in favour of amending the
constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic – only
the second time in the thirteen years the Convention has been held that
delegates have voted for a change to the Constitution on the topic being
examined.
“With
greater public education about our current constitutional arrangements and
consultation about the issues involved in becoming a republic support for the
republic will only increase” Mike Keating said. “Surely in the 21st century we deserve our own constitutional
arrangements and the good sense of the Australian people will ensure we achieve
the best possible solution”.
May 8 2008
Further comments: Mike Keating (ARM
National Chair) 0412 337 137
Peter van Vliet (ARM Media Liaison) 0417
489 226
Click here to see the Roy
Morgan poll
Back
to top
ARM SUBMISSION TO THE 2020
SUMMIT
Why the
2020
Summit
must consider the Republic Issue
Your Agenda
The
2020 summit presents a rare opportunity to influence our national leaders on
the future direction of
Australia
. Although the “Future of Australian
Governance” agenda does not expressly mention the republic issue, it contains
items such as 'renewed democracy’, 'the rights and responsibilities of
citizens’, and 'community engagement’. Consideration of these issues necessarily requires consideration of the issue of
Australia
becoming a republic.
Renewing
Democracy
It would be
inconsistent to talk about renewing democracy while not discussing whether an unelected foreign monarch should remain
at the apex of our political system.
The
Rights of Citizens
No
Australian can aspire to be the Head of State of Australia under the Australian
Constitution. It is inappropriate and
debasing to have a situation where a British child, born into a particular
British family, can one day automatically become Australia’s Head of State, yet
no Australian child can ever become our nation’s Head of State no matter what
he or she achieves in life. This
diminishes our democracy, and ultimately our pride in ourselves as Australians. It makes a mockery of
our claim that ours is an egalitarian nation.
Community
Engagement
The policy on
which the government was elected already involves community engagement about a possible change to a republic – first,
full public debate; next, one or more plebiscites; finally, a referendum. At least as to this issue, no new mechanism
of engagement needs to be invented – by
simply implementing its mandate the government will be inviting the
community to become engaged in the resolution of this important issue.
Why We Should Start Now
The 1999
referendum on the republic was not lost because a majority of Australians
wanted the British Monarch to remain our Head of State, it was lost because a particular model of republican government was voted
against by monarchists and many republicans alike. It is now more than eight
years since the referendum, and polling continues to show that the people of
Australia
are
no more in favour of a British Head of State now than they were then.
There is no
excuse for leaving this reform undone. It is at least as important as many of
the other significant issues on the Government’s agenda. The sooner we start the agreed process of
moving to a republic, the sooner an Australian will be able to unequivocally
represent us as a nation, and every Australian child will be able to grow up knowing that he or she can aspire to
be that representative one day.
Australians
should not remain subjects of the British Crown well into the 21st century. We must present to ourselves and the world as a proud and
unambiguously independent people.
We ask the
Summit
to call on the government and opposition to work together to make
Australia
’s
transition to a republic with an Australian Head of State a high bipartisan priority.
Back
to top
OTHER RELEASES
AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS MEDIA RELEASE
April 2008
Democrats challenge Rudd on Republic
Senator Natasha Stott Despoja
Democrats Senator for
South Australia
The Australian Democrats have issued a legislative
challenge to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on the republic, saying that the
resounding consensus from the 2020 summit demands an immediate legislative
response.
"In 2001, I introduced the Republic
(Consultation of the People) Bill 2001, which would provide a legislative
response that captures the renewed momentum for an Australian republic to
emerge from the summit," Democrats' Attorney-General's spokesperson,
Senator Natasha Stott Despoja said.
"The bill provides for a simple two-question
plebiscite at the next general election:
1. Do you want
Australia
to
become a republic?
2. If most Australians
decide they want a republic, do you want the opportunity to choose from
different republic models?
"My bill would do something that the
republican referendum didn't to do ten years ago: ask the Australian people in
a straightforward fashion whether or not they want to sever ties with the British
monarchy and, if so, allow Australians to have their say in how the republic
should be structured.
"The plebiscite would be non-binding but would
also provide a definitive answer on the republic question.
"It is one thing to emerge from the 2020 summit
with a set of aspirational goals, but quite another to take legislative steps
toward achieving those goals as any elected government should do.
"I call on the Rudd Government to support the
immediate passage of my bill through the Senate when it next sits in May,"
Senator Stott Despoja said.
Senator Stott Despoja was the Democrats'
representative at the 1998 Constitutional Convention. Details of the Republic
(Consultation of the People) Bill 2001 are available at: http://wopared.parl.net/bills/index.htm (click on 'Current Bills (by Private Member)' and then select Senator Stott
Despoja's name).
Back
to top
Thirteenth National Schools' Constitutional Convention
Republic is successful
Background
The thirteenth National Schools
Constitutional Convention (NSCC) was held at Old Parliament House in Canberra from 29 April to
the 1 May 2008.
One hundred and twenty two students
from government, independent and Catholic schools from across Australia,
covering metropolitan and country areas attended. Approximately 45% of students
were from government schools, 30% were from independent schools and 25% were
from Catholic schools.
Convention Focus
The topic for
this year's convention was Australian Republic: To be or not to be? Student delegates
were provided with pre-reading and presentations about republican systems used
elsewhere in the world. During the
presentation sessions students were asked to concentrate on the following
issues:
- The method of election of the
Head of State;
- The method of dismissal of the
Head of State;
- The constitutional powers of the
Head of State. For example their role in the appointment (and dismissal)
of an Executive or government; and
- The symbolic functions of the
Head of State.
Students were
also asked to:
- consider which aspects of these
other systems might be suitable for
Australia
- analyse what might be some of the
problems if aspects of these other republican models were translated to
Australia
.
Convention Processes Day 2
Delegates were provided with two addresses that provided
arguments for and against Australia
becoming a republic. The case for Australia
becoming a republic was presented by Senator Kate Lundy and the case against by
Senator Cory Bernardi. Following each
thirty minute presentation students were given an opportunity to ask questions
to clarify points and to seek further information as well as challenge the
views put forward by the speakers. These
sessions provided a context for delegates' first Working Group activity that
required them to consider the arguments for and against Australia
becoming a republic and report back their views.
Prior to the
first Working Group and after reflecting on the Senators' perceptions an
indicative plebiscite was held on the threshold question: Should Australia
become a republic?
The responses
to the plebiscite question Are you in favour of
the Australian Constitution being amended to establish the Commonwealth of Australia
as a republic? revealed that 54% (66 votes) of the
122 delegates were in favour of Australia
becoming a republic and 45% (55) were not.
(There was one informal response.)
The first
Working Group required delegates to identify up to six arguments for and
against the proposal that Australia
should become a republic. A report back
session enabled delegates to briefly report on the most significant arguments
expressed by their group for and against Australia becoming a republic.
Some of the
key arguments for Australia
becoming a republic were:
- the
symbolic benefits of controlling our own destiny such as deepening our national
pride
- the
monarchy is already seen by many Australians as being obsolete because of
Australia
’s
multi-racial and multi-cultural society
- decisions
about Australian matters should not be determined by a foreign monarch
- that
it would be a natural progression of our commitment to democracy
- that
asserting our independence from the Crown may increase our standing
internationally
- that
we are able to look to other models and select those features that best suit
our circumstances
-
all offices in the Australian
political system should be open to all Australians.
Some of the
key arguments against Australia
becoming a republic were:
- the
cost of running a referendum and consequential costs associated with changing
the way we are governed
- the lack of consensus about what republican model to adopt
- it
could de-stabilise what in now a very stable system
- the
presidential role could be brought into conflict with the prime ministerial
rolee
- current
checks and balances invested in the Crown and Governor General could be lost
- we
could possibly have a President who has not been popularly elected
- the
possibility of unforeseen factors producing a worse model than we currently
have
- there isn’t a compelling argument for making any change
- establishing
a republic is not a priority issue
- attempts
to bring in a republic have already failed
- model for a republic is only symbolic
and would not generate substantial change.
Further input to stimulate delegate's
thinking in relation to the republican issue was provided through a panel
session that discussed existing republican systems from overseas. Clémence
Cousin, Trainee Assistant to the Ambassador and Nickolas Cherrier, Cultural
Assistant, Embassy of France outlined the republican model adopted in
France. Aidan Cronin, First Secretary, Embassy of Ireland outlined the republican model adopted in
Ireland and David Sohier,
Labor Attaché/Political Officer, Embassy of the United States discussed the USA republican model. Dr Clement
Macintyre who is a Reader in Politics at the University of Adelaide
facilitated this session.
The second
Working Group following the panel discussion of republican systems in France, Ireland
and the United States of America
required delegates to consider and discuss the strengths and weakness of these
models. The group activity was structured around the following tasks:
- Task 1: (Group activity) -
Discuss the overseas models and identify the most attractive and useful features
(when thinking of change for
Australia
); and any potential
weaknesses in these models.
- Task 2: (Individual activity) -
Outline the strengths and weaknesses of these models.
It was noted that:
- the
Irish model is not dissimilar to the minimalist model and if adopted would
involves little change to our existing system;
- the
French model is a semi-presidential system that allows direct election and some
discrete powers to be held solely by the President; and
- the American model provides for a
stronger presidential role and a much clearer separation of powers between the
executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
A soapbox
session followed the second Working Group. This session enabled students to
advance arguments in favour and against Australia becoming a republic and
to highlight the features of the three overseas republican systems that
appealed to them or that they did not like.
Some of the
features of the other republican systems that students were attracted to were:
- the
direct election of the President (i.e. the people elect the country's leader)
- the
President being chosen by elected representatives (because this is less costly
than a direct election)
- the
President having no executive powers and being above party politics
- the
President being a representative of all the people
- the
President performing important ambassadorial functions and representing the
country in various ways (e.g. receiving delegations from other counties,
visiting other counties on behalf of the nation and opening or presiding over
important national events)
- the
codification of the powers of the President are clearly articulated in all of
the overseas models
- the
arrangements in place to remove Presidents who are unable or unwilling to
fulfil their role is outlined in the Constitution
- the
checks and balances are provided by the Congress having the power to approve
the actions of the President
- the
ability of the President to assume power in extreme/exceptional circumstances
- the
five-year term for the President (which avoids having presidential elections
too frequently)
- ease of transition to the Irish
system in particular.
Some of the
features of the other republican systems that students were not attracted to
were:
- the
President being both the Head of State and the Head of Government
- the
use of 'electoral colleges' to determine who is elected as President
- tthe
high cost of running a presidential campaign
- too much power being invested in the President (e.g. the power to declare war).
Convention Processes Day 3
At the
opening session delegates were provided with more contextual information by
Professor John Williams and Dr Clement Macintyre who outlined three possible
republican models for Australia.
The three
models presented for discussion were:
- Model 1: (Minimalist) - A republic with
the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President selected and
appointed by the Prime Minister.
- Model 2: (Semi-minimalist) - A republic
with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by
a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
- Model 3: (Direct election) - A republic
with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President elected
directly by the electors of Australia
The third
Working Group was asked to consider the best republican model for Australia. The
Working Groups were required to address the following tasks:
- Task 1: (Group): Evaluate and assess the
merits of the different proposals.
- Task 2: (Individual): List the strengths
and weaknesses of each model presented, then use these to consider any comments
that you may wish to make at the Soap Box Session that follows this Working
Group.
The third
Working Group was followed by a Soap Box session where students had the
opportunity to present the case for or against one of the three models that
were discussed.
Delegates
generally were divided into those for and those opposed to Australia
becoming a republic and advocated their positions in the Soapbox session. The following points were also raised through
this session.
Arguments
presented in favour of Model 1 (Minimalist) included:
- least complicated to implement as requires
the least change
- the Governor General is subordinate to the
Prime Minister
- no election required and so least costly
- easy process for dismissing the Governor
General
- provides symbolic change.
Arguments
presented against Model 1 included:
- it is not democratic – the people do not
elect the Governor General
- easy dismissal of the Governor General
- wasted opportunity to really review the
Governor General's roles and powers
- there is a potential for conflict between
the Governor General and the Prime Minister
- politicians are making the choice, not the
people
- only provides symbolic change.
Arguments
presented in favour of Model 2 (Semi-minimalist) included:
- it the candidate emerges from consensus
- empowers the Parliament ahead of the
Governor General
- saves money as no costly election required
- it is likely to restrict candidates to
'safe' people – those already approved by the majority of the Parliament
- it is a safe first step on the way to
going further later
- power
back to the legislature against the executive.
Arguments
presented against Model 2 included:
- it gives control to the Parliament over an
elected Governor General
- it is not democratic
- it is likely to restrict candidates to
'safe' people – those already approved by the majority of the Parliament
- could set the candidates up for ridicule
from the one third of politicians who do not support the nomination
- politicians are choosing on behalf of the
people
- gives power
back to the legislature against the executive.
Arguments
presented in favour of Model 3 (Direct election) included:
- the people get to choose – it is
democratic
- it here will be popular support for the
Governor General
- it anyone can become a candidate
- Governor General will clearly represent the nation.
Arguments
presented against Model 3 included:
- an elected Governor General with a very
strong majority could be in conflict with the government
- it will require careful codification of
the Governor General's reserve powers
- it will require a complex set of changes
to the Constitution
- likely to get either a politically active
candidate or glamour candidate
- as the whole of Australia determines it is unlikely
that a candidate from a smaller State/Territory will be elected
- good people may not to go through an
election process and so will not put themselves forward.
- gives the cost of the election
- gives the cost of campaigning to be elected may
restrict candidates to the very wealthy or those affiliated with political parties
or associations with large finances.
- gives could attract people with a political
agenda to push
- gives it is
unclear what a person is actually 'running' for.
Following the
Soapbox session a mock referendum using a preference voting system was
conducted to determine the preferred model to be the focus for the referendum
vote. Prior to voting delegates were
provided with an explanation of what a referendum is and how a referendum is
initiated.
The three
models used in this plebiscite to determine which model goes to a mock
referendum were:
- Model 1: Head of State appointed and
dismissed entirely at the discretion of the Prime Minister
- Model 2: Head of State appointed and
dismissed by two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the Federal Parliament
- Model 3: Head of State directly elected by
a ballot of all eligible Australian voters.
The results
from this plebiscite were
:
- 22 (18.5%) votes for Model 1
- 87 (73.1%) votes for Model 2
- 10 (8.4%) votes for Model 3
There were 2
informal votes and one of the delegates who was unwell
was unable to register a vote.
Consequently
the following proposition was presented for the referendum.
- To alter the Constitution to establish the
Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General
being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members
of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Delegate's
perspectives on the proposition to amend the Constitution
Results were
tallied for the mock referendum on the proposition to alter the Constitution to
establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and
Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds
majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
The referendum to amend the
Constitution in this manner was successful.
The detailed
results of this mock referendum are outlined on the following tally board
designed by the Electoral Education Centre of the Australian Electoral
Commission. One hundred and twenty-one
formal votes were caste.
Proposal: To alter the Constitution
to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and
Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds
majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
|
National Tally Board
|
Formal
YES
|
Formal
NO
|
Is the
majority in favour?
|
|
|
New
South Wales
|
21
|
8
|
Yes
|
|
Yes
|
|
Victoria (1
informal)
|
18
|
7
|
Yes
|
|
Queensland
|
14
|
12
|
Yes
|
|
Western
Australia
|
3
|
12
|
No
|
|
South
Australia
|
4
|
8
|
| | 
