Archive for the Australian Republic category.
Greg Barns
THERE is a saying about putting the cart before the horse, and it is particularly apt when one thinks about Julia Gillard’s recent remarks about an Australian republic.
The Prime Minister told the National Press Club on July 15 that she did not, for the foreseeable future, favour another vote on allowing Australians to elect directly or indirectly their own head of state, unless there was consensus on the issue. There had to be community consensus first, and she does not ”think we should put a republic referendum until we are able to say with some confidence that we are there”.
What we needed, Gillard told her audience, was for ”community activism [to] come forward in order to create the kind of environment where a republic referendum would be able to be successfully concluded”.
Assuming for a moment there is no such community consensus on Australia becoming a republic, that it is a highly contested proposition, the problem with Gillard’s approach is that community activism and consensus do not appear suddenly from the ether.
Issues only generate interest, debate and activity if there is a trigger for them. In the case of constitutional or governance issues, it is rarely – if ever – the case that there is community activism unless government leads on it. The federation issue is a historic example, as is commonwealth-state relations today.
Let’s go back a step. Is it true there is no community consensus on the need for Australia to finally end its relationship, forged by colonial circumstance, with the British crown?
Gillard cited the position in her own electorate of Lalor, in Melbourne’s west, to argue the case that there was no community consensus for a republic.
With respect to the honourable member for Lalor, this is disingenuous. The majority of her electorate narrowly voted in 1999 against the proposition of a president elected by parliamentarians. The vote was 48.7 per cent ”yes” to 51.2 per cent ”no”. In other words, almost one in two of her electors favoured the proposition. If we take the numbers who would have supported a directly elected president, it is fair to say support for an Australian republic in Lalor would have been more than 60 per cent.
Sixty per cent represents a consensus in any democracy. If Gillard seeks a consensus, she has it in her own backyard.
Around Australia there is a sense a republic is inevitable in most people’s minds. Support hovers between about 45 and 55 per cent. Even monarchists such as the former prime minister John Howard take the view that once the octogenarian Queen dies or abdicates, the game is up for the British monarchy in Australia’s constitutional lexicon.
On the basis of numbers and the likelihood of the Queen not being around forever, Gillard should feel compelled to reignite community debate on a republic.
If one seeks tangible evidence of how muddle-headed the Prime Minister is on her desire for some magical community activism and consensus to emerge on a republic without any leadership from her and Canberra generally, she should look no further than one of her predecessors, Paul Keating.
When he became prime minister in 1991, support for an Australian republic was – at best – in the mid-30s percentage. If Keating had applied Gillard’s logic to the issue he would have left it alone. But he knew politics is about leading, about shaping debate and public opinion. That is what he did throughout his time in government as the great reformer of the Australian economy.
By the time Keating left office in 1996, support for a republic sat close to 60 per cent. A number of Liberal leaders were as happy to support a republic as Keating’s ALP colleagues were. Around the country there was discussion about what a republic would mean. Children in schools talked about it, as did community groups and individuals.
The constitutional convention held in 1998 fascinated many because it was the sort of national ”conversation” (another Gillard favourite) that was engaging and important to us as Australians.
For a prime minister who is keen on the nation “moving forward” it seems extraordinary she would want the country to continue to be regarded as an oddity in the region in which it sits by virtue of its doffing its cap to a foreign monarch.
The current Australian of the Year, Patrick McGorry, observed last month that Australia is ”an independent country that is mature enough to have its own head of state”. Therefore, he said, ”I don’t understand why politicians always say: ‘Well yes, it’s an important issue but we’re not ready for it yet; there are other important issues.’ ”
He is right. Whatever happened to the idea of fleshing out a vision of nationhood in an election campaign? It used to matter. It certainly mattered to the great post-war leaders Ben Chifley and Robert Menzies. It mattered to Gough Whitlam and to Keating, and even to Malcolm Fraser. Increasing Australia’s independence was a fundamental tenet of nationhood for each of them, and it certainly mattered in the context of winning elections.
The former Howard government minister Amanda Vanstone observed of Menzies on October 28, 1999, that “he was a man who looked to the future, who was prepared to break with the past … Against advice from the United Kingdom, he established Australia’s first overseas posts in Washington, in Tokyo.”
Menzies certainly talked big about Australia ”moving forward”, even if he did not use that term.
But today it is as though talking about a republic, or any form of constitutional or symbolic change, is now taboo in election campaigns. Gillard wanted to put it to bed before she hit the campaign trail, so it was neatly tucked away. Abbott won’t allow for a debate on a republic. You can bet his colleagues – most of them republicans, including his high-profile MPs Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb – will be similarly mute on the matter.
No doubt Gillard’s election advisers will tell her to leave the republic alone, because it is not that important in the context of the choice people will make on August 21. To think in such a fashion reflects an intellectual paucity. As McGorry says, national identity is always important.
So when Gillard asks the electorate to help her move Australia forward and her rival Tony Abbott promises to “stand up for Australia”, don’t both slogans sound meaningless if they merely refer to tax cuts, government spending and fears about a handful of boats arriving on our shores?
The failure of our political leaders to make the republic a topic du jour during this election campaign might be unwise for another reason. What if Queen Elizabeth were to die during the next parliamentary term? What if she announced a succession plan? What would Gillard or Abbott do? Pretend it wasn’t happening?
Greg Barns, a former chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, ran the ”yes” campaign for the 1999 republic referendum and is the co-author of An Australian Republic.
David Donovan and Mike Keating
In a recent article, we talked about monarchist myths about an Australian republic and, in particular, the specious ‘ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ argument.
This article looks at another furphy put forward by those who seek to prevent Australia becoming a truly independent nation with an Australian head of state. That is, that the cost of becoming a republic would be so incredibly high that it would cripple the nation with debt for generations, or such like.
In one unaudited “audit” written by monarchist David Flint in 2006, the cost of a republic was put at $2.5 billion, which would be a laugh except for the serious fact that some people take what he says at face value.
The problem republicans face is that monarchists like David Flint are happy to exaggerate, distort and sometimes even deceive to argue their case. Their strategy is to try to create a myth that will plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the uninformed. This is normally all it takes for referendums to be defeated in Australia because amendments to the Constitution are so difficult to pass under our system.
In his 2006 article Flint mostly details costs that would not be necessary under any reasonable move to a republic.
He includes $100 million for a new flag plebiscite. This would not be required for an Australian republic as the flag is a completely separate issue. The Australian Republican Movement is not advocating a change to the flag and, indeed, many prominent republicans are quite happy with the current flag. We can be a republic without a new flag.
Flint includes $400 million for state and territory plebiscites. Actually, only in Queensland and Western Australia is the position of the Queen and Governor “entrenched’ in their state Constitutions. Thus, only for those states would another vote be necessary after a federal referendum. The best available figures show that a referendum would cost about $5 million for each of these states, or about $10 million in total.
He includes $300 million for presidential elections, and $400 million for gubernatorial elections. Here, Flint is suggesting Australia will become an American style republic which is, of course, quite wrong. The truth is, Australia will continue to have a system based on the British Westminster system and will have a non-Executive President, whichever method of appointment is chosen. Election costs for a non-Executive President, who has few powers, would be minimal. For an appointed President, there would be no campaign costs. And, as far as we are aware, no-one is suggesting State Governors would be elected, to suggest otherwise is simply deceitful.
Next, Flint says it is “difficult to estimate” but puts an apparently “conservative” cost of $1 billion on rebranding costs of a republic: such things as new banknotes, coins and the costs of changing the names of institutions with “Royal” in their titles, like the Royal Australian Navy, for example. Of course, Flint also includes many things in his “calculation” that wouldn’t necessarily come about: such as new flags for the nation, states and territories; new awards and medals; and higher wages, travel, accommodation and staff costs for “higher profile” Presidents and Governors.
The truth is, of course, benign. New coins and notes are produced every day. When we became a republic old currency would be phased out and replaced in exactly the same way it is done at the moment. No new cost there. As for design work, we produce new designs for our money all the time as a matter of course, so there would be essentially no additional expenditure required there. The same goes for changing the names of institutions. There would be no requirement for “Royal” institutions to instantly rebrand all their stationery, building and equipment, this would also happen gradually, in the same sort of way, and cause negligible additional costs.
Having removed almost $2.2 billion from Flint’s rather steep $2.5 billion cost for a republic, what remains is $300 million for the plebiscites, information campaigns and the final federal referendum required to change the constitution. According to information provided on the AEC website about the costs of these matters, even this amount appears exaggerated, considering the cost of the 1999 referendum was only $66 million. We believe the final figure is likely to be more in the order of $200 million, and less if the votes were held in conjunction with federal elections. Including state referendums and other rebranding costs, the total cost may approach $250 million.
On the other side of the equation, Flint does not mention the ongoing costs of maintaining the royal family. For example, whenever a member of the royal family visits Australia – any member, not just the Queen – the Australian taxpayer picks up the tab. For example, it cost us almost $400,000 for a five day tour by Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall in 2005 and $1.8 million for a visit by the Queen to Melbourne in 2006. Not paying for royal tours in future will be an ongoing benefit for Australian taxpayers for the rest of the life of the Australian nation.
The Australian taxpayer will also be excluded from the cost of providing needless baubles for the royal family. In 2006-07 the Australian Government paid almost $400,000 for a gaudy royal coach that was built by an Australian monarchist, Jim Frecklington, as a private gift to the Queen for her 80th birthday. Shockingly, even though the Government had paid to ship the carriage to Buckingham Palace, the coach still sits at Frecklington’s workshop in Manly, Sydney.
In a republic, the Australian taxpayer would be saved these kinds of needless and frivolous costs.
But even without taking these savings into account, $250 million is more than worth the investment since it is, in fact, the cost of running and maintaining our democracy. There have been 44 referendums since federation and no-one, surely, would suggest that our Constitution should now stay fixed and never change again.
In a democracy, people elect their representatives to pursue the issues that they feel are important. Given that Australia is a relatively rich country, we can assign our national resources to whatever priorities the people want. In the most extensive poll done on a republic in recent years, by independent research body UMR late last year, they found that a minimum of 59 per cent of Australians want the nation to move to a republic.
To put the cost in context, Australians gambled $11 billion in the last financial year. Nothing comes for free. Whilst these days it is politically correct to express the costs in terms of equivalent hospital beds or policemen on the streets, the cost of a republic is not the issue.
Australia is a rich country and we can afford the costs if we are committed to improving our democracy. The modest costs necessary to bring about an Australian republic are necessary to give the people a say in the future of their democracy and to develop an unambiguous national identity.
David Donovan is the media director of the Australian Republican Movement and its Queensland branch convenor. Major General Mike Keating AO has retired from service. He is the chair of the Australian Republican Movement.
David Donovan and Mike Keating
In a recent article, we talked about monarchist myths about an Australian republic and, in particular, the specious ‘ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ argument.
This article looks at another furphy put forward by those who seek to prevent Australia becoming a truly independent nation with an Australian head of state. That is, that the cost of becoming a republic would be so incredibly high that it would cripple the nation with debt for generations, or such like.
In one unaudited “audit” written by monarchist David Flint in 2006, the cost of a republic was put at $2.5 billion, which would be a laugh except for the serious fact that some people take what he says at face value.
The problem republicans face is that monarchists like David Flint are happy to exaggerate, distort and sometimes even deceive to argue their case. Their strategy is to try to create a myth that will plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the uninformed. This is normally all it takes for referendums to be defeated in Australia because amendments to the Constitution are so difficult to pass under our system.
In his 2006 article Flint mostly details costs that would not be necessary under any reasonable move to a republic.
He includes $100 million for a new flag plebiscite. This would not be required for an Australian republic as the flag is a completely separate issue. The Australian Republican Movement is not advocating a change to the flag and, indeed, many prominent republicans are quite happy with the current flag. We can be a republic without a new flag.
Flint includes $400 million for state and territory plebiscites. Actually, only in Queensland and Western Australia is the position of the Queen and Governor “entrenched’ in their state Constitutions. Thus, only for those states would another vote be necessary after a federal referendum. The best available figures show that a referendum would cost about $5 million for each of these states, or about $10 million in total.
He includes $300 million for presidential elections, and $400 million for gubernatorial elections. Here, Flint is suggesting Australia will become an American style republic which is, of course, quite wrong. The truth is, Australia will continue to have a system based on the British Westminster system and will have a non-Executive President, whichever method of appointment is chosen. Election costs for a non-Executive President, who has few powers, would be minimal. For an appointed President, there would be no campaign costs. And, as far as we are aware, no-one is suggesting State Governors would be elected, to suggest otherwise is simply deceitful.
Next, Flint says it is “difficult to estimate” but puts an apparently “conservative” cost of $1 billion on rebranding costs of a republic: such things as new banknotes, coins and the costs of changing the names of institutions with “Royal” in their titles, like the Royal Australian Navy, for example. Of course, Flint also includes many things in his “calculation” that wouldn’t necessarily come about: such as new flags for the nation, states and territories; new awards and medals; and higher wages, travel, accommodation and staff costs for “higher profile” Presidents and Governors.
The truth is, of course, benign. New coins and notes are produced every day. When we became a republic old currency would be phased out and replaced in exactly the same way it is done at the moment. No new cost there. As for design work, we produce new designs for our money all the time as a matter of course, so there would be essentially no additional expenditure required there. The same goes for changing the names of institutions. There would be no requirement for “Royal” institutions to instantly rebrand all their stationery, building and equipment, this would also happen gradually, in the same sort of way, and cause negligible additional costs.
Having removed almost $2.2 billion from Flint’s rather steep $2.5 billion cost for a republic, what remains is $300 million for the plebiscites, information campaigns and the final federal referendum required to change the constitution. According to information provided on the AEC website about the costs of these matters, even this amount appears exaggerated, considering the cost of the 1999 referendum was only $66 million. We believe the final figure is likely to be more in the order of $200 million, and less if the votes were held in conjunction with federal elections. Including state referendums and other rebranding costs, the total cost may approach $250 million.
On the other side of the equation, Flint does not mention the ongoing costs of maintaining the royal family. For example, whenever a member of the royal family visits Australia – any member, not just the Queen – the Australian taxpayer picks up the tab. For example, it cost us almost $400,000 for a five day tour by Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall in 2005 and $1.8 million for a visit by the Queen to Melbourne in 2006. Not paying for royal tours in future will be an ongoing benefit for Australian taxpayers for the rest of the life of the Australian nation.
The Australian taxpayer will also be excluded from the cost of providing needless baubles for the royal family. In 2006-07 the Australian Government paid almost $400,000 for a gaudy royal coach that was built by an Australian monarchist, Jim Frecklington, as a private gift to the Queen for her 80th birthday. Shockingly, even though the Government had paid to ship the carriage to Buckingham Palace, the coach still sits at Frecklington’s workshop in Manly, Sydney.
In a republic, the Australian taxpayer would be saved these kinds of needless and frivolous costs.
But even without taking these savings into account, $250 million is more than worth the investment since it is, in fact, the cost of running and maintaining our democracy. There have been 44 referendums since federation and no-one, surely, would suggest that our Constitution should now stay fixed and never change again.
In a democracy, people elect their representatives to pursue the issues that they feel are important. Given that Australia is a relatively rich country, we can assign our national resources to whatever priorities the people want. In the most extensive poll done on a republic in recent years, by independent research body UMR late last year, they found that a minimum of 59 per cent of Australians want the nation to move to a republic.
To put the cost in context, Australians gambled $11 billion in the last financial year. Nothing comes for free. Whilst these days it is politically correct to express the costs in terms of equivalent hospital beds or policemen on the streets, the cost of a republic is not the issue.
Australia is a rich country and we can afford the costs if we are committed to improving our democracy. The modest costs necessary to bring about an Australian republic are necessary to give the people a say in the future of their democracy and to develop an unambiguous national identity.
David Donovan is the media director of the Australian Republican Movement and its Queensland branch convenor. Major General Mike Keating AO has retired from service. He is the chair of the Australian Republican Movement.
Daile Pepper
Ben Elton has been forced to apologise for his royal rant onGood News Week that enraged Brits this week.
The comedian and writer’s opinions on the monarchy, British sporting prowess and more disgusted the British, where newspapers ran outraged stories about his comments on the comedy show.
Elton is moving back to Fremantle from his base in London – and it seems the British public can’t wait to see the back of him.
Now his spokesman has said the comments were taken out of context and Elton simply made the comments against the monarchy when asked to play a word association game.
“He was making a joke about Australian republicanism, pointing out on a comedy show that the Queen and her family were far more reflective of the modern rainbow population they represented than any other,” the spokesman said.
Displaying his vitriolic wit and sarcasm on the comedy show, Elton made a series of comments regarding the UK, calling the Queen “a sad little old lady”, Prince Philip a “mad old bigot”, joking about sex with Margaret Thatcher and saying Prince Charles was just a “disillusioned ex-hippy”.
He said London had scored the 2012 Olympics in order to give Britons some chance at sporting success and because the rest of the world felt sorry for the British when it came to athletic prowess, and launched a royal rant against the Queen calling her “a sad little old lady who lives in state sponsored accommodation”.
On sex with Thatcher he said: “She sort of annoyed me because she would always want to smoke afterwards and I hated that because that was so dirty”.
Elton, born in Sussex, England, has divided his time between Fremantle and London for years. The writer and comedian has dual British and Australian citizenship and is married to Fremantle-based jazz saxophonist Sophie Gare.
Today the British press published stories outraged by the opinions the comedic writer displayed on the show on Monday night, with many readers also expressing their disgust.
“The Aussies are welcome to this loud mouthed self opinionated man,” wrote Col P of Ware, England on the Daily Mail website.
“Elton has left the building (er U.K) – and don’t come back – never liked him anyway, talentless, unfunny etc” wrote SOS.
“Good riddens (sic) to this new POM with his Sheila down-under . . . they’ve got real nasty reptiles there Ben!” commented P. Owen from Llandudno, UK.
“With an attitude like his North Korea would have been a more appropriate move. My sincere sympathies to the Australian readers,” wrote Phil from Canada.
Elton’s latest book, Meltdown, is a humorous look at the global financial crisis.
Elton and Gare are expected to move back to Fremantle next month so they can spend more time with the Australian half of their family.
Daile Pepper
Ben Elton has been forced to apologise for his royal rant onGood News Week that enraged Brits this week.
The comedian and writer’s opinions on the monarchy, British sporting prowess and more disgusted the British, where newspapers ran outraged stories about his comments on the comedy show.
Elton is moving back to Fremantle from his base in London – and it seems the British public can’t wait to see the back of him.
Now his spokesman has said the comments were taken out of context and Elton simply made the comments against the monarchy when asked to play a word association game.
“He was making a joke about Australian republicanism, pointing out on a comedy show that the Queen and her family were far more reflective of the modern rainbow population they represented than any other,” the spokesman said.
Displaying his vitriolic wit and sarcasm on the comedy show, Elton made a series of comments regarding the UK, calling the Queen “a sad little old lady”, Prince Philip a “mad old bigot”, joking about sex with Margaret Thatcher and saying Prince Charles was just a “disillusioned ex-hippy”.
He said London had scored the 2012 Olympics in order to give Britons some chance at sporting success and because the rest of the world felt sorry for the British when it came to athletic prowess, and launched a royal rant against the Queen calling her “a sad little old lady who lives in state sponsored accommodation”.
On sex with Thatcher he said: “She sort of annoyed me because she would always want to smoke afterwards and I hated that because that was so dirty”.
Elton, born in Sussex, England, has divided his time between Fremantle and London for years. The writer and comedian has dual British and Australian citizenship and is married to Fremantle-based jazz saxophonist Sophie Gare.
Today the British press published stories outraged by the opinions the comedic writer displayed on the show on Monday night, with many readers also expressing their disgust.
“The Aussies are welcome to this loud mouthed self opinionated man,” wrote Col P of Ware, England on the Daily Mail website.
“Elton has left the building (er U.K) – and don’t come back – never liked him anyway, talentless, unfunny etc” wrote SOS.
“Good riddens (sic) to this new POM with his Sheila down-under . . . they’ve got real nasty reptiles there Ben!” commented P. Owen from Llandudno, UK.
“With an attitude like his North Korea would have been a more appropriate move. My sincere sympathies to the Australian readers,” wrote Phil from Canada.
Elton’s latest book, Meltdown, is a humorous look at the global financial crisis.
Elton and Gare are expected to move back to Fremantle next month so they can spend more time with the Australian half of their family.
A decade after its defeat at the polls, the prospect of an Australian republic remains very much alive. The referendum loss on November 6, 1999, left many Australians dissatisfied. They had been denied a vote on their preferred model, and the proposal put to them had problems. For others, the arguments in favour of change have remained as strong as ever.
Things started to go wrong at the 1998 convention on the republic convened by John Howard, the prime minister. Only half of the delegates were elected by the people – the other half being MPs or government appointees.
In general the government appointees supported either the current monarchical system or minimal change. This undermined support at the convention for the direct election of a president. The appointed delegates skewed the result towards a more conservative outcome, with the model put at the subsequent referendum providing for the selection of a president by a two-thirds majority of Federal Parliament.
That the composition of the convention, rather than the merits of the models, proved decisive left prominent direct election republicans bitter and disillusioned. Some split from republican ranks to oppose the referendum in league with the monarchists. Together they gave life to the powerful ”no” argument that Australians should reject a ”politicians’ republic”.
It was always going to be a battle to win a majority ”yes” vote at a referendum, given Howard’s opposition. No referendum has ever succeeded in Australia without bipartisan support, let alone without the support of the prime minister.
These were not the only problems. Even the parliamentary appointment model put to the people by the Howard government had defects. The most significant was a mechanism by which the president could be dismissed unilaterally and without reason by the prime minister. Parliament would have been required to approve the dismissal, but could not overturn the decision, nor reinstate the president.
Opinion polls since 1999 have shown continuing strong support for a republic. Many continue to press for change to our constitution because it is at odds with our political and legal independence. They also rail against a system under which Australia’s head of state is the hereditary monarch of a foreign nation, chosen under a 1701 English statute that ranks men over women and rules Catholics ineligible. Sexism and religious discrimination are unacceptable tests for any position in modern Australia.
The Rudd Government came to office with a commitment to again put the issue of a republic to the people. This time things need to be different. There should be an initial popular vote on whether to move to a republic and, if yes, another on what type. Any referendum following these plebiscites should be on the model that people most prefer. Australians should not be asked to vote on a proposal that has been imposed upon them and that they regard as second best.
If the polls are right and the debate does not shift people’s views, this may result in a referendum on a republic in which our head of state is directly elected. I hold no fears about such a model, provided it is properly drafted.
The key would be to ensure that the powers of the new head of state are written down so the office cannot rival that of the prime minister. The failure of the current constitution to define the powers of Australia’s monarch and her representative, the governor general, represents a major fault in the system. In 1975 it meant Sir John Kerr could use powers that had not been known to exist to sack the Whitlam government.
Australians should have the chance to vote at a second referendum on the type of republic they most prefer. The next republic debate should not be driven by false fears. Instead, it should be about what sort of nation we aspire to live in, and how this can be reflected in the office of our head of state.
George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor of law at the University of NSW. He is a member of the national committee of the Australian Republican Movement.