The Australian Republic Issue

Where possible I have tried to group them by subject. Those which have don't easily fit in one of the nominated pigeon-holes are filed under one of the General categories.

Australia's Constitutional Dilemma: Monarchic and Republican Traditions in the Australian Polity

By Graham Maddox. Paper delivered to the workshop conference The Dominion Concept: Inter-state and Domestic Politics in the British Empire at the University of Warwick, July 1998. At the Political Science Discourse site.

In Defence of Republicanism: A Reply to George Williams

By Andrew Fraser. In Federal Law Review Vol. 23 No. 2. Biblio. For Williams's response, as well as his original paper, see below. Stored at the archived copy of the Federal Law Review at the National Library of Australia.

A Republican Tradition For Australia?

By George Williams. In Federal Law Review Vol. 23 No. 1. Biblio. Stored at the archived copy of the Federal Law Review at the National Library of Australia.

The Traditions of Australian Republicanism (63K)

By Dr Mark McKenna - Consultant. Research Paper of the (Federal) Parliamentary Library. (Research papers are "in depth analyses of issues of interest to the Parliament".) Bibliography.

We are on our own: the global and historical context of an Australian Republic

By John Warhurst. November 2002. Presented to the Australian Constitutional Futures 2002 conference. "[A]ddresses the topic of the global and historical context of an Australian republic from the perspective of the Australian Republican Movement". (A PDF version of the document is available here at the ACF 2002 site.)

What Role for Republicanism? A Reply to Andrew Fraser

By George Williams. In Federal Law Review Vol. 23 No. 2. Biblio. Stored at the archived copy of the Federal Law Review at the National Library of Australia.

Monarchy v Republic: Some Biblical Considerations

• Page 1
• Page 2

By Dr Noel Weeks. Dated 24/2/2000. At the Evangelical Action Online site.

The Real Issue in the Republic Debate

• Page 1
• Page 2

By Reverend Andrew Stewart. Dated 24/2/2000. The republic issue from a Christian perspective. At the Evangelical Action Online site.

The Recent Republic Debate--A Chronology: 1989-1998 (273K)

• By "Carolyne Hide" - Consultant, Karen Davis, and Ian Ireland. Background Paper of the (Federal) Parliamentary Library. Covers 16 February 1989 to 2 February 1998. An update of a June 1996 paper.
• The original 1996 paper by "Carolyn Hide" [sic?] (covering 16 February 1989 to 1 March 1996) can be found here (200K).

Citizenship And The Australian Republic

By Glenn A. Davies. Essay (plus long list of references). "The majority of the republican debate over the past four years has concentrated on the headship of the state. For republicans it should focus on the meaning and powers of citizenship." At the Discovering Democracy site. (Note: some older browsers may see blue horizontal stripes across the DD's webpages.)

Dual Nationality and an Australian Republic

By Nick Hobson. At the The Australian Republic Unplugged site. Section 44(i) of the Constitution and the dual nationality question.

Security and Defence in an Australian Republic (missing)

• By Captain Brian Adams, RAN. Essay. July 1997. At the Australian College of Defence and Strategic Studies site.
• The republic issue from the military's perspective: allegiance, oaths of allegiance, the Constitution & Defence, and other matters.

Averting Constitutional Crises in a Republic

• By Linda J. Kirk. Paper delivered to The Women's Constitutional Convention on 29 January 1998. A large slice of the paper focusses at the McGarvie model. But also looks at the direct election & Keating models, and the existing arrangements. Stored at an archived copy of The Women's Constitutional Convention site at the National Library of Australia.
• "There must be a mechanism in a republican constitution to ensure the prompt dismissal of a Head of State who acts to obstruct, or collude with a government, to subvert the democratic process."

Dismissing a President

By Ian Ireland. Brief research note at the Department of the (Federal) Parliamentary Library site. Compares the present situation with regard to the Governor-General and the one proposed for the so-called Bipartisan Model voted on at the Convention with the practices of several other countries, such as Ireland and the United States.

Lessons from the Hollingworth Affair (PDF)

• By George Winterton. Includes a canvassing of implications for the republic issue. Stored at Democratic Audit of Australia site of the ANU.
• "The Affair crystallized what had for some time been immanent, but perhaps not obvious: the publicÕs sense of ownership and demand for accountability of this once obscure and remote, but now prominent, public office. Ironically, by aggrandizing the office of Governor-General, the monarchists may have served the republican cause, for the Australian people are likely to conclude that the present office is too weak and lacking in popular legitimacy to sustain the sort of Head of State they now demand."

Methods of Choosing a Head of State (77K)

• By Anne Twomey (original text) Rosemary Bell (update). A background paper of the Department of the (Federal) Parliamentary Library. 23 January 1998. An update of Background Paper No. 12 issued in June 1993. Starts off with some of the arguments put at the 1891 Convention (Sir George Grey was in favour of directly electing the Governor-General, Alfred Deakin was not), and looks at both elective and non-elective methods. Also looks at what other countries do, including qualifications for office, term, etc for their heads of state.
• "This paper does not canvass the relative merits of monarchies and republics. Rather, it considers how an Australian head of state may be chosen if Australia were to become a republic."

Queen's hand a royal flush for monarchists (missing)

• By David Marr. Dated 19 October 1999. At the Sydney Morning Herald's site. Journalist seeks (& cites) various opinions (from the Queen down) on who is Australia's head of state. Note: the Queen's website is actually "http://www.royal.gov.uk".
• "The lady in question is covering her tracks. The Queen's Web site--www.royal.gov.au [sic]--used to say, in amongst the history of her corgis and the latest news of Princess Margaret, that Her Majesty was 'head of state' of Australia, Canada, Barbados, etc. Some time in the past month the terms have changed. She now describes herself as 'sovereign'."

Selection and Tenure of the Head of State

By Cheryl Saunders. At the archived copy of the Legal Forum on the Proposed Republic site at the National Library of Australia.

1788 to 1993: Tracking the History Of Republicanism in Australia

By Mark McKenna. Drawn from his Ph.D thesis. At an archived copy of the Australian Republican Movement site maintained by the National Library of Australia.

Australians and The Monarchy

• By Peter Spearritt. At the website for the National Centre for Australian Studies at Monash University.
• "Australians over the age of 40 have grown up with the monarchy. Most still know one or two stanzas of 'God Save the Queen' and many sing it with more certainty than they bring to 'Advance Australia Fair'."
• "Until the 1990s there were only a few short periods when over one-third of Australians were attracted to the idea of a republic. In the latter half of the 1960s, when the issue briefly surfaced on the public agenda, and again on the election of the Whitlam Labor Government in December 1972, republicanism seemed to be on the rise. In a poll taken just two months after Whitlam's election, 41 per cent of adults over 21 years of age favoured a republic, with 49 per cent of ALP voters and 32 per cent of Liberal-National Party voters favouring the change."

Australians and The Monarchy--The Book (212K)

Edited by Annette Shiell and Peter Spearritt. At the website for the National Centre for Australian Studies at Monash University. Consists of a webpage of short essays by a range of authors, including Sir Harry Gibbs, Helen Irving, & Mark McKenna. Most of the pieces deal with the monarchy in an historical context (eg the origins of Empire Day) but several deal specifically with republican matters. Produced for a 1993-94 exhibition of the same title.

The Crown and the Constitution

By Sir Walter Campbell (Governor of Queensland 1985-1992). The Field Marshal Sir Thomas Blarney Memorial Oration for 1993. Delivered 15 September, 1993. Stored at the The Monarchist League in Australia site. Does not directly address the republic issue, except right at the end. More of a recapitulation (and perspectives) of various selected events in Australian constitutional history, tying them into its theme of the monarchy.

The Historical Background

By Audrey Oldfield. At the State Library of NSW's Republic of Australia: A Forum site, which was held at the library on 14 August 1999. ("My part in this forum is to give an overview of nineteenth century republicanism, which will provide a background for the coming discussion. I will concentrate on the people involved, and the reasons why their efforts came to nought, in (a) the convict period (b) the years leading up to the 1856 colonial constitutions, and (c) the 1860s to 1901.")

Monarchy vs Republic

• By Professor Godfrey Tanner. 12 September 1997. At the Godfrey's Gripe website, which in turn is part of the 2NUR FM site at Newcastle University. Has some partisan material, but mainly consists of some useful reflections on the Crown and its representative in an historical context.
• "[W]hen...the colonies in Australia and Canada and elsewhere in the world [were founded], the Crown appointed an executive Governor[. ... L]ike the Ministers of State and the bureaucracy[, they] acted on behalf of the Crown in their colony. Once the colonies got, under Lord Durham's plan, responsible government, first in Canada and later here, this changed the whole situation. Unlike the American State Governor--who grew out of the British colonial Governor with executive powers--Governors in this country did not have executive powers. They were Regents for the Sovereign to open Parliament, sign bills when appropriate and conduct ceremonies of various sorts. If we have a President, what is the relation of six Governors, appointed to represent as Regents an absent Sovereign when there's a very present Head of State on the campus?"

The Republic Debate (Missing)

Author unknown. At the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website. A somewhat dated but still useful Fact Sheet from DFAT outlining the recent history of the republic issue and the attitudes of the various political parties. Not updated since late in the Keating era (going from the URL date, presumably very early in 1996).

"With Eyes Open": Andrew Inglis Clark and our Republican Tradition (137K)

By John M. Williams. In Federal Law Review Vol. 23 No. 2. Biblio. Stored at the archived copy of the Federal Law Review at the National Library of Australia.

The Monarchy, The Media and The Polls

Press release. Presented to the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy 22 October, 1993 by Gary C. Morgan. After some to-ing & fro-ing I've placed this one here. Covers opinion polls, Barry Jones, Gary Morgan's father, and why "If a referendum were held today, Australia would remain a monarchy, despite the last published Morgan Poll in Time [April 1993] which showed the republic ahead [52% vs 38%]." Includes the results of an April 1993 poll which tested which mechanism Australians preferred for choosing a president if Australia were to become a republic.

Newspoll

• 4/4/1993: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked whether in favour or against, and whether the flag should be changed.
• 11/7/1993: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked whether in favour or against, when a referendum should be held, how a president should be chosen, and what a president's powers should be.
• 19/3/1995: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked whether in favour or against and how a president should be chosen.
• 1/6/1995: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked whether in favour or against, how a president should be chosen, and their about their powers; and also about the relative merits of the Howard & Keating approaches, also how the republic issue might affect voting in the then forthcoming 1996 election.
• 9/2/1997: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked whether in favour or against, when a referendum should be held, and a question about the convention.
• 29/6/1997: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked whether in favour or against, and whether in favour of the convention being postponed.
• 9/11/1997: In the Australian (PDF)
  Compares trends over several previous polls in three areas: whether in favour or against a republic, the preferred method of choosing a president, and whether they preferred the head of state to be or not be a politician.
• 13/11/1997: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked whether in favour or against, the preferred method of choosing a president, and whether they preferred the head of state to be or not be a politician.
• 7/12/1997: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked whether in favour or against.
• 1/2/1998: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked about the kind of issues to be considered by the then forthcoming convention.
• 8/2/1998: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked about the kind of republic model preferred.
• 17/1/1999: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked whether in favour or against.
• 28/2/1999: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked whether in favour or against and whether will "most likely" vote YES or NO.
• 28/3/1999: In the Australian (MS Word)
  Asked whether in favour or against and whether will "most likely" vote YES or NO.
• 25/7/1999: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked whether in favour or against.
• 15/8/1999: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked about the kind of republic preferred. (And compared the results with several previous occasions usingvariants of the same question.)
• 12/9/1999: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked about the kind of republic preferred.
• 24/10/1999: In the Australian (PDF)
  Questions asked related to the then forthcoming referendum.
• 31/10/1999: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked why respondents would vote NO in the then forthcoming referendum, whether they considered the YES & NO cases accurate or not, and who would be their first choice as president.
• 4/11/1999: In the Australian (PDF)
  Questions asked related to the then forthcoming referendum.

Republican Sentiment In The Realms Of The Queen: The New Zealand Perspective

By Noel Cox. First published in the Manitoba Law Journal (vol. 29, 2001-2002). Mainly about republicanism in NZ, but also includes a look at republicanism in two other jurisdictions: Britain & Australia. Stored at the author's website.

Concon Preambles Compared

• At the Australian Broadcasting Commission website on the convention. Gives the preambles of nine other countries plus the Magna Carta, the one to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, together with the Howard, ALP, and Premier Kennett proposals and the recommendations for a preamble by the 1998 Convention. Also includes an explanation for why those nine countries (and the Magna Carta) were chosen.
• "The Magna Carta: The most celebrated document limiting autocratic power since Roman times...is not a democratic document: it entrenches and codifies power in the hands of a small unaccountable elite, but in its attempt to set explicit limitations on executive power and to reinforce the rule of law it set the stage for the emergence of the American democracy 500 years later."

Constitutional Preamble

By George Winterton. Professor Winterton discusses what modifications might be made to the preamble in "the advent of an Australian republic". Includes a list of "do's and don'ts". At the AustLII site.

The Need for a New Preamble to the Australian Constitution and/or a Bill of Rights (135K)

By Mark McKenna. At the Department of the (Federal) Parliamentary Library site.

Preambles

Collected by the Women's Constitutional Convention (steering committee). At the Australian Women's Constitutional Network site. A page of preambles from other nations' constitutions, from Albania to Zambia.

Preamble Quest: Background Paper

Background paper prepared by the CCF. Parts are drawn from one of the CCF's factsheets, others are new. At an archived copy of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation site at the National Library of Australia.

• What does a Preamble do?
• The Legal Effect of a Preamble
• How has the Existing Preamble been used?
• How has the Preamble been used in Other Countries? (Canada, Ireland, and India are cited.)
• What did the Constitutional Convention say?

Queen's Official Website

Contains assorted information on the Queen's role, esp. for the UK but also for the Commonwealth of Nations (as distinct from her role under Australia's State and Federal Constitutions).

Constitutional Referenda in Australia (153K)

By Scott Bennett & Sean Brennan. Research paper at the Department of the (Federal) Parliamentary Library site. Examines the history of federal referenda in Australia, the impact the eight successes have had, the constitutional aspects of s128, and other issues. Lots of tabulated facts and figures. Makes reference now and again to the forthcoming republic poll, but saves a closer look at it for the end, where it examines (briefly) what the outcome of the vote might be.

An Historical Perspective of the Reserve Powers

By J. B. Paul. Stored at the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site.

The Reserve Powers of the Governor-General

• By Susan Downing. A January 1998 (the note itself gives "1997", but this is clearly an error) research note from the Department of the (Federal) Parliamentary Library.
• A brief statement and discussion, with particular reference to their use in 1975 and the republic issue.
• "The Constitution provides the Governor-General with a number of express powers such as the command of the defence forces.... These seemingly far-reaching powers are in practice tempered by the convention that the Governor-General exercises them in accordance with Ministerial advice ('the principle of responsible government'). However, there are powers that the Governor-General may, in some situations, exercise without Ministerial advice or even contrary to Ministerial advice. These 'discretionary powers' are known as the reserve powers."

Reserve Powers Rejected

No author given. At the Australian Constitution Research Projects site. Canvasses the issue of the reserve powers under a republic.

The so-called Reserve Powers and the Head of State

By Clifford Einstein QC. At the archived copy of the Legal Forum on the Proposed Republic site at the National Library of Australia.

Amendment Issues: States' and Territories' Issues

By Keith Mason QC (Solicitor-General for NSW). At the archived copy of the Legal Forum on the Proposed Republic site at the National Library of Australia.

The Australian States and an Australian Republic

By George Williams. At the archived copy of the Legal Forum on the Proposed Republic site at the National Library of Australia.

The Framework of Constitutional Monarchy in the Australian States

By R. D. (Darrell) Lumb. Stored at the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site. The Statute of Westminster, the Australia Acts, State constitutional procedures, etc.

Implications of a Republic for Western Australia (PDF)

By Greg Craven. A discussion paper stored at The Constitutional Centre of Western Australian site.

Queensland Constitutional Review Commission: Issues Paper (1896K) (PDF)

• July 1999. At least one chapter (#12) of this weighty (>200 pages) tome deals with republic issues from a State's perspective. Specifically, Queensland's.
• Note it also contains at least one error: "The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), the Schedule of which is the Commonwealth Constitution..." The Constitution is, of course, in fact contained in s9 of the Act. The Act itself has no schedule (though the Constitution does).

The Republic: Problems and Perspectives

• By Peter Howell. Largely (but not entirely) a State's perspective on the republic issue. Paper presented to the Samuel Griffith Society in June 1996.
• Professor Howell is a member of the South Australian Constitutional Advisory Council (whose role re matters republic he explains in the paper).

State Constitutions in a Republican Australia (PDF)

By Michael Lavarch MP, Federal Attorney-General. Speech to the Australian Study of Parliament Group (Queensland Chapter), at Parliament House, Brisbane, 18 May 1995. At an archived copy of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation site at the National Library of Australia.

The States and a Commonwealth Republic in Australia (PDF)

By Chris Ballinger. At a University of Oxford website. A thesis for the Honour School of Philosophy, Politics, and Economics of the University of Oxford.

The States and the Republic: Background Paper

Prepared by the CCF for the Queensland Constitutional Convention of 16-18 June 1999. Appears to a HTML-ised version of a printed text (there are spaces for diagrams which do not appear on the page.) A long and detailed look at the issue of the States under an Australian republic. (Also looks at some aspects of a republic for Territories.) At an archived copy of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation site at the National Library of Australia.

The States if Australia Separates from the Monarchy

By Richard McGarvie. Paper presented at the Australian Legal Convention, Canberra, 12 October 2001. At the author's website.

Gender Issues Associated with the Powers and Appointment of the Head of State

1. Gender Issues to be Considered in Discussions about the Role of the Head of State
2. Gender Issues for a Move to a Republic: The Appointment of a Head of State
   • By Kim Rubenstein. Two papers delivered to The Women's Constitutional Convention on 29 January 1998. Stored at an archived copy of The Women's Constitutional Convention site at the National Library of Australia.
   • "The most conclusive way of ensuring that women are properly included in the selection of the position of Head of State is to mandate the alternating gender of the position."
   Women in the Republic
   By Geoff Pain. Based on an article first published in the Fremantle Herald. ("We don't need a President, Senate or the States in our Republic but we need more Women!")

Reports

An Australian Republic--Issues and Options

By the Republic Advisory Committee. Reproduced from the Year Book Australia, 1995. At the Australian Bureau of Statistics site, which in turn was a "reproduction of the summary report, under the same title, of the Republic Advisory Committee, subject to minor changes in presentation for the Year Book".

Reactions

Ho-Hum for the Republic

Fairly brief. c. 1993. At the the Green Left Weekly Home Page site.

The Republic Advisory Committee: A Review by Committee Chairman Malcolm Turnbull

At the ARM site.

Alternatives for an Australian Presidency

• By Peter Costello. At the official federal treasurer's website. Hard to place this one. The title is mine and more or less reflects the content. This is actually a speech Mr Costello gave to the Constitutional Convention on 3/2/1998 and is simply labelled "Address by the Hon Peter Costello, MP: Commonwealth Treasurer". I have put it here because although it contains an expression of his views, it seems by and large an assessment of the main alternatives (popular election, parliamentary vote, McGarvie model) offered at the convention.
• "It is quite commonly said that all this argument is about whether we want an Australian as our head of State. If that were all we wanted then one of the options to fix it would be an Australian monarchy. But in truth, the problem is more with the concept of monarchy."

An Australian Republic

By George Winterton. An even-handed look at the Australian republic issue. Published in the Summer 1998 edition of the NIRA Review, a publication of the National Institute for Research Advancement of Japan. At the NIRA website. Includes a brief description of the model proposed by the 1998 Convention.

Constitutional Change in Australia (117K)

By Darius von Guttner-Sporzynski. A somewhat different version of his "Policy Debate Discussion Paper" for the Young Liberal Movement of Australia Victorian Division's Policy Committee. Not a bad canvassing of the issues and options. Although be warned: it is a political party product, and the ALP gets a bucketing now and again (one of it's purposes is stated in the abstract to be about showing "Labor's hypocrisy in dealing with republican issues".) Has a huge bibliography and very extensive footnotes.

Constitutional Mechanisms and the Republic (missing)

By Stephen Moignard. A "research essay" for what would seem to be a university course (MLL 216). The students were asked to "describe and analytically assess" three "legal issues involved in constitutional change of Australia into a republic". Note: the title listed above is one I have assigned to it (on the basis of two of the above-mentioned questions), as the one that appears on the essay itself ("Public Law and Civil Rights") does not appear to reflect the content.

Hot Topic 22: A Republic?

By Trish Luker. One of a series of publications on legal issues published by the Legal Information Access Centre. This particular one has now been made available online (at the AustLII site). It provides an overview of the history of republicanism in Australia, the 1998 Convention, an explanation of the key constitutional issues, and a summary of the arguments presented by both monarchists and republicans. Also presents 3 case studies of non-executive presidencies (Ireland, Trinidad & Tobago, and Germany). Information about other this Hot Topics published by the LIAC can be found here.

The Inauguration of a Republic by Constitutional Change

By Warwick T.M. Peters. A law student's view of such issues as "what type of republican government should be adopted and what changes should be made to the constitution to affect a republic are ones that continue to spark much argument...[the] questions and also the reasons for and against Australia becoming a republic" and "the problems of interpreting s. 128 of the constitution, the nature and powers of the head of state and lastly how the Australian States will be affected by the inauguration of a republic."

A REPUBLICAN AUSTRALIA? Issues for Tasmanians

• By the Tasmanian Advisory Committee on Commonwealth/State Relations. (Surprisingly) clear, concise, and dispassionate. Does not adopt any particular point of view. Looks at a wider spectrum of republics than the recent federal committee did (which concentrated mainly on the Westminster parliamentary sort, and virtually ignored the US model).
• Note: unhappily this page seems to have been pulled from the Net.

Of Royalty and Republics: Implications for Queensland from the 1998 Constitutional Convention (PDF) (193K)

By Helen Gregorczuk. August 1998. Examines changing to a republic at Commonwealth Level, republican options for Queensland, can the states be compelled to become republics? Also looks at the 1998 Constitutional Convention. Research Bulletin 6/98. 60 pages. For the Queensland Parliamentary Library. At the website for Queensland Parliament.

A Republic Strong in Democracy

Author not stated, but the paper is declared to be a "Report of [an] Address [by Richard McGarvie] to Classes of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology on 3 May 2000". Lengthy, but thorough. At the website for Richard McGarvie.

A Republic: the Issues

• By Sir Harry Gibbs. An ex-Chief Justice's analysis of what changing to a republic would (constitutionally) involve: Reserve Powers of the Governor-General, Appointment of a President, Dismissing a President, Progression to a Republic. A paper to the Samuel Griffith Society, 8th March 1997.
• Another copy can be found here at the The Monarchist League in Australia's site.

Republic--Yes or No?

An online version of those lift-outs that were in the newspapers of the weekend of 8-9 November 1997. At an archived copy of the Dept. of the PM & Cabinet's Convention website now hosted at the National Library of Australia's site.

Richard E. McGarvie (Former Governor & Supreme Court judge of Victoria)

[Other papers more specifically on the model McGarvie prefers may be found in the Other Blueprints section (under "Other Proposed Republican Models"). See also The 1999 Blueprint for his view of the Bipartisan Model and the prospects for his own post-1999. More of his views post-1999 can also be found in the The Republic Post-1999 section.]

Democracy: Choosing Australia's Republic

By Richard McGarvie. Online edition of the 1999 book published by Melbourne University Press. At the latter's website.

Governorship in Australia

• "The role and function of the Governor in a parliamentary democracy". Paper presented to the Senior Executive Chapter Luncheon of the Australia Institute of Management in Melbourne on 8 September 1993 and has been "specially revised for publication". (Another copy here.)
• Title & subtitle are somewhat misleading. Although the paper does deal in large part with these things, it does so in the context of the republican debate, and (more particularly) with a view towards proposing a "possible republican scenario".
• "The current debate whether to change from the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth of Australia and each state to each having an Australian as republican Head of State reveals that many on both sides lack knowledge of what a Governor now does in Australia."

Maintaining Our Democracy in Monarchy or Republic

• Paper presented to Australian Institute of International Affairs, 31 July 1997. Examines the question of which of three models for a Presidency (direct election, parliamentary election, or appointment/dismissal on advice of PM) would "best maintain the strengths and safeguards of our democracy". (Another copy here.)
• "Of the four essential organs of government in our system, two of them, Parliament and government, must be elected and the other two, head of state and top courts, must not."

Our Democracy in Peril

• Paper published "substantially in the Australian (its version can be found here), Age, and Herald Sun, 1 May 1997 and fully in (1997) 101 Victorian Bar News, p.31." (Another copy here.)
• "The models for an elected republican President sharing 94% support last year [a reference to the combined tally for the direct & parliamentary election model options] are recipes for disruption that would cost us our democracy by giving us an undismissible President."

A Prediction: We'll be a Safe Republic by About 2005

Article published in The Age, 5 November 1999. Strictly speaking, the author actually makes two predictions in his article. The first: "Tomorrow's vote will fail". The second: "The next vote will be on an even more minimalist model."

Preserving the Democratic Character of Government, Including the Role of the Courts

• The 1998 Ronald Wilson Lecture. The republic issue gets a passing mention (and the 1998 Convention's chosen model a swipe), but mainly looks at deeper issues such as judicial independence and the procedure for dismissing a Governor.
• "What are the essential components of a good democracy? The quality of a democracy reflects the quality of both its constitutional system and its community."
• "The method of dismissal is even more important because it provides the penalty that makes conventions bind the Governor."

A Submission to the Republic Advisory Committee (removed)

By Jason Clift Johnston. At his own website. A private citizen canvasses the issues. Favours a president elected by Parliament. (His more recent thoughts on the matter are here.)

Trapped in a Dominion: The Head of State in an Australian Republic

• By Alan J. Ward. Paper delivered to the workshop conference The Dominion Concept: Inter-state and Domestic Politics in the British Empire at the University of Warwick, July 1998. At the Political Science Discourse site.
• "This paper is about Constitutional Conventions and constitutional conventions. ... [It is] also about the difficulties that Australia has had in breaking away from certain provisions of its constitution that were already obsolete when they were adopted in 1900."
• "[E]ven if Australia becomes a republic, it will not have escaped the influence of its original dominion constitution because the President will retain the Governor-General's uncodified reserve powers. I appreciate that there are reasons for this, both tactical and principled, but I contend that it represents a degree of contempt for ordinary Australians. One of the few founders to argue that British conventions should be written into Australian law, Joseph Curruthers, of New South Wales, saw the folly of not codifying them when he said, in 1891, 'It is better to let [the Australian] Constitution clearly express what it is intended to effect; do not let us have to back it up by quoting whole pages of Dicey'".

The Truth About the Republic Debate

• Author unknown. Dated November 1999. An even-handed look at the republic issue by someone intending to vote "YES" in the 1999 referendum. At the Law For You site.
• "There has been a fair measure of rubbish put about by both sides in this debate, a great pity considering the seriousness of the issue and the long term effects on the future of our country."

The Constitution and the Republic

• Bill Hayden, Suzanna Lobez, and Prof. Cheryl Saunders (Deputy Chairwoman of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation) debate the republic on Radio National's The Law Report (20 February 1996).
• "In light of all the recent discussion regarding Australia as a republic, why then do we need a plebiscite, convention or referendum, and will a referendum on the Head of State alone make us a republic?"

First Wednesday Transcript

A transcript of the ABC TV's First Wednesday program which dealt with issues related to the Australian Constitution. Touches on the republic issue. First broadcast on 1 October 1997. The presenter was Radio National's Peter Thompson. Guests included Harry Evans, Senator Bolkus, and Cheryl Saunders.

Constitutional Centenary Foundation
(The CCF appears to now be defunct. The links here come from an archive at the National Library)

Head of State

• Background material. One of the CCF's Fact Sheets.
• ("The Head of State in Australia", "The Role of a Head of State", "Other Models for a Head of State" (2 executive presidencies and three non-executive ones), "Designing a Republican Model for Australia, "A Republic and the States", "Altering the Constitution for a Republic").

Very brief essays from the Other Issues for Consideration part of the Foundation's Models for an Australian Republic series of essays. (Note: this series of links from the CCF now appear to be off-line.)

• Links with the Crown at State Level
  Very brief. Poses a series of questions and then points out (with examples) that "[t]hese issues also have been encountered by other federal systems which are republics".
• The Constitution as part of the British Act
  The Constitution as part of an Act of the British Parliament: the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
• The Constitutional Preamble
  
• The System of Government
  "Chapter II of the Constitution presently says very little about executive government, partly because its main focus is to confer power on the Queen and the Governor-General." (Note: actually only one of the ten sections in Chapter 2 confers power on the Queen (s61). By comparison, five of them are concerned with the federal ministry and the Federal Executive Council.)

Legal Forum on the Proposed Republic
(held in the Great Hall, University of Sydney, 30 November 1996)

Note: some of the papers previously filed under this heading have now been filed separately under one of the new subject headings of the Issues & Analysis section. The Forum's website is now held in an archive at a National Library of Australia site.

Constitution Building for a Possible Republic: The Problems

By Justice Ken Handley, NSW Court of Appeal. (Another copy is here at the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site.)

Blocking Supply in the Senate - Now and in a Republic

By Justice Santow, Supreme Court of NSW

What if Britain becomes a Republic?

By Michael Stokes

The need for Constitutional Recognition and Protection of those who have always constituted Australia

By Father Frank Brennan

Sovereignty and the need for recognition of Indigenous people in an Australian Republic

By Susan Phillips (but never made available on the WWW)

Constitution Building for a Republic? Possible Solutions

Transcript of the open discussion session. Moderator: The Honourable A. M. Gleeson, Chief Justice of NSW.

Views specifically about the 1998 Convention's adopted model (or particular features when these are duly revealed) can be found down in the section on the 1999 Blueprint. Also links to speeches on the republican issue by delegates at the 1998 Convention can be found in the Speeches subsection of the The 1998 Constitutional Convention.

ACTU

An Australian Republic

• Congress resolution. September 1993. ("The ACTU Congress, having considered developments in regard to the introduction of a republic...")
• Note: item 1.5(ii)(d) would appear amount to be suggesting that pre-teenage children should be given the right to be appointed president.

ACTU Republic Resolution (missing)

Dated 1995. ("Congress calls on unions to actively promote an Australian Republic by the year 2000.")

Australian Democrats

The Republic: An Australian Democrat Issue Sheet

Would be more fairly described as an "Australian Democrat Position Sheet", since it canvasses no issues but simply states the Democrats' policy position on Matters Republic. (Note: missing. Link disabled.)

Australian Republican Movement

Note: some of the ARM's State & Territory branches now have their own websites:

[ACT] [Victoria] [Gold Coast]

The ACM Exposed

The ARM responds to claims in a "leaflet from the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy". At an archived copy of the Australian Republican Movement site maintained by the National Library of Australia.

Frequently Asked Questions

"What is a republic?", "Who is Australia's head of state?" etc. Best described as a list of frequently asked questions (FAQ) for why Australian should become a republic. ("We believe our Head of State should be an Australian Citizen. We believe our Head of State should live in Australia and know what it means to be Australian.")

Towards a Republic (removed)

States the objectives of the ARM & the kind of Australian republic it would prefer. Essentially endorses the blueprint outlined by the former Prime Minister Mr Keating.

What is a Republic? (removed)

While it does cover the issue in the title, it also mixs opinions on the question in as well (eg "Our monarch is Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Australian Republican Movement believes this arrangement is no longer appropriate nor suitable for Australia."), which is why this essay is here rather than in Issues & Analysis section.

Why Australia should become a republic

At an archived copy of the Australian Republican Movement site maintained by the National Library of Australia.

Greg Barns

Belittling our own potential

• Published in The Australian, 8 January 2002. At the website for ARM's ACT branch. A response to a speech Tony Abbott had made to the Young Liberals.
• "Tony Abbott's speech to the Young Liberals last Friday demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of a populist conservatism that prefers to cling to the values and symbols of the past rather than embrace those that define our future."

Bill Bunbury

The Australian Republic: Inevitable or in the Never-Never (missing)

• Essay at the Canning Electorate Forum of Western Australia site. (Note: non-graphical browsers will not be able to read it.)
• "'Inevitable' is a word we should never use about the Australian republic. 'Inevitable' means 'some day, not now'. It also implies that, like some ripe apple, it will fall into our laps."

William Byrne

Republic versus Monarchy

• Argues the case for a republic, plus presents rebuttals to pro-monarchist arguments. ("To have an English Monarch as 'ruler' of Australia is an impediment to our nation obtaining its own sense of full independence and true self-government.")
• At the Australian Nationalism Information Database site. NB: that same site also deals in very much more extreme (but anonymous) views on matters republic (eg "Our duty is clear: Smash the Traitor State, and proclaim a patriotic Australian republic.").

A Cockatoo's View of the World

The Australian Republic Debate (missing)

A series of (brief) weekly essays on various aspects of the debate.

Communique Australia

Republic Australia (removed)

Describes itself as "an indepth look at frequently [asked] questions and answers concerned with the Australian Republic". Better described as an FAQ (="frequently asked questions")-style page giving brief answers to a series of questions about an Australian republic. Includes Republic Australia-Why?

Peter Coroneos

A Republican Australia (missing)

A "talk" given to the Salamanca Rotary Club, Hobart 25 July 1995. At the ARM's NT site.

Sir Zelman Cowen

Inaugural Melbourne Lecture (removed)

Delivered 24/9/1997. Qualified support for a republic. Supports parliamentary election of President. However: "if direct election was preferred as the appropriate mode of choice of a president, I would see it as producing such undesirable outcomes that I would prefer to stay where we are and retain the constitutional monarchy."

Stephen Crowe

Time is right to ask the hard questions

Article in Newcastle Herald, January 2001. Reflections on the Olympics, the Centenary of Federation, & the Republic. At the Australian Republican Movement site.

Glynn Davis

Opening Address to the Australian Constitutional Futures conference 2002 (103K) (PDF)

• Presented to the Australian Constitutional Futures 2002 conference. The Duke of Wellington, the Reform Act of 1832 and why monarchists may live to rue the day they opposed the 1999 model.
• "By refusing to accept moderate--indeed minimalist--reform, monarchists and their allies have ensured any new proposal must be more populist, more ruthless. It is likely that next time the issue resurfaces--and it will--the outcome will be much more substantial change to the Australian constitution than was rejected in 1999."

Senator Alan Eggleston

The Republic: an idea that has reached its time

• Speech delivered to the John Stuart Mill Society 22/9/1997. At the ARM site.
• "I believe a country's Head of State should symbolise the ethos, values and aspirations of a nation and it is for this reason that I personally support an Australian Republic."

Time for a Republic

Extract from Senator Eggleston's maiden speech in the Senate. Delivered 11/9/1996. At the ARM site.

Chris Gallus MP

I am a Patriot

• Options #10, September 1999. At Christopher Pyne MP's homepage at the Liberal Party of South Australia's site.
• "I am a patriot. Unashamedly I am biased in favour of Australia. I buy Australian made, I cheer Australian sportsmen, I still mourn Peter Allen. I want Australia to have the highest standard of living in the world, to win the Olympics, to lead nations. Is it too much to ask that Australia's Head of State feel the same way about Australia as I do?"

Cassandra Gelade

Is the Republic Inevitable?

• A speech at "The Great Debate" on radio 5AN in Adelaide, 7 June 1994. At the ARM website.
• "In anticipation of the well-used argument, 'if it ain't broke don't fix it', the sole argument advanced by the monarchists, it is clear that Australia's Parliamentary system certainly isn't broken. It is equally clear that Australia's Constitution is totally irrelevant, out-dated, elitist, exclusionary, sexist, racist and not representative of contemporary Australia."

Jennie George

Address To Queensland Branch of the Republican Movement

29/11/1995. At the ACTU website. Two main themes: unions & the republic & women & the republic.

Leigh T Gillespie

Australia--A Republic? (Missing)

• "A short article on the need for an Australian republic and the difficulties in implementing the necessary changes."
• "...the terms 'democracy' and 'monarchy' are mutually exclusive."

Allison Henry

Conclusion to the Australian Constitutional Futures conference 2002 (103K) (PDF)

Presented to the Australian Constitutional Futures 2002 conference.

Roslyn Lucas

Debating the Republic (missing)

• Correspondence between Ros Lucas and Ria Arinta Mukti. (From Societial Influences on Leadership, a "Web book" of "edited email correspondence" between "student teachers from the Faculty of Education at the University of Tasmania and the Institut Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan (IKIP) at Malang [Indonesia] on the meaning of citizenship in their countries and on the education of children for citizenship.")
• "I certainly believe a Republic rather than a Monarchy is more culturally appropriate to our contemporary Australian society."

Jenny Macklin

Visions for Australian Polity 2020 (PDF)

• Presented to the Australian Constitutional Futures 2002 conference. Note: the title seems to bear no relation to the content.
• Another (HTML) copy can be found here at the ALP site.
• "Those who say they support a republic but rail against the problems and dangers of having an elected head of state miss the point. Instead of lambasting the public for their decision, it is my view that we who want a republic have to find a way to make an elected head of state work."
• Note: her statement about s25 of the Constitution ("people who are disqualified from voting on the basis of their race are not included in population calculations") appears to imply s25 excludes such persons from the census. It could also be construed as referring to those disqualified by the Commonwealth. In fact, s25 applies only to people disqualified by a State from a State's franchise, and the only exclusion it makes is from the calculation s24 uses to determine the number of MHRs a State is entitled to. In other words, s25 penalises those States who exclude people from their franchise on the basis of race (by reducing their representation in the House of Representatives). The provision itself is based on a similar one in the 14th amendment (section 2) of the US constitution whose intention was to penalise those American states who persisted, even after the US Civil War was over, in excluding Black Americans from the franchise. For more on s25, see the report of the Constitution Commission.

Sir Anthony Mason

Reassessing Constitutional Links with the UK

• Sir Anthony talks to Liz Jackson on Four Corners via the ABC's Radio National's The Law Report (28 October 1997).
• Sir Anthony, it seems, has "been a Republican since I was seven, and the Bodyline series in 1932-1933."
• (As a bonus, after Sir Anthony's transcript Susanna Lobez discusses the Caribbean's constitutional ties with Britain, which are not without some bearing on the Australian republic issue. Unlike Australia, any of Britain's former colonies there still retain appeals to the Privy Council. However, in the Caribbean "support for the death penalty is said to run at about 95%", unlike the Privy Council of "more merciful Mother England", which is commuting death sentences left and right. So now "there are...moves afoot to sever this legal umbilical cord" and "create a Regional Court of Appeal more likely to reflect local values.")

Benjamin May

Renewing the Australian Constitution

At the Randomness Central: Ish's Website. ("Given the republican sentiment of Australians38 the monarchy should be excised from the Constitution. The defeat of the 1999 model demonstrates that a minimalist approach is unpopular. This leads us to the second major aim of Constitutional reform, which is to bring the Australian people into the process of governance in a more effective manner.")

Millennium Dilemma: Constitutional Change in Australia (at the University of Wollongong)
(interviews with legal experts, academics, and other notables on a broad range of constitutional matters, among them the republic issue)

Tony Blackshield

"I began in the recent round of debate by being resistant to the idea of direct popular election. I was persuaded by the argument that the degree of democratic legitimacy would give the head of state too much real political power. But it is overwhelmingly clear that the Australian people want the head of state directly elected, and if that's what they want they should have it. I actually then began to think that there might be good reasons for direct popular election, that the people might actually be right. Even if they're wrong, I always remember Oliver Wendell Holmes in the US Supreme Court who took some very radical decisions on very conservative grounds, and essentially his philosophy was, 'If the people are damn fool enough to want this sort of law they should be allowed to have it'."

Zelman Cowen

Harry Evans

• Makes no explicit statement supporting a republic, he does say he would "prefer an executive presidency".
• "I have no doubt that a head of state, whether in a parliamentary system or a system with an executive presidency, should be directly elected by the people. In a parliamentary system, I think it is necessary for the head of state--being the umpire of the system--to have sufficient independence from the legislature and, particularly, from the government of the day. All the schemes for indirect election or appointment of the Governor-General by the parliament involve the Governor-General, in effect, being appointed by the government of the day. They are really only a gloss on the system allowing the prime minister to appoint the Governor-General. A parliamentary system, in my view, can't work unless the head of state, that is, the umpire in the system, has sufficient independence from the government of the day and from the legislature. That means direct election. If you have an executive presidency, I think that necessarily entails direct election of the head of state by the public."

Brian Galligan

John Goldring

"My concern is that if you had a head of state elected on the first past the post basis by the whole of the people, you have the potential for a very strong difference of opinion between the legislature and the head of state. You also have a system where the winner might take all. A situation where the winner of the election might say 'I have the mandate of the people and I can do what I like.' The best precedent for that is Weimar Germany where Hitler was elected chancellor. He was elected by popular vote. A person who claims a popular mandate is a dangerous thing in politics." NOTE: Hitler was never elected chancellor. He was appointed to that office by President Hindenburg. (He did, however, stand for the presidency, but lost to Hindenburg.)

Stuart Macintyre

"We need to move from a Governor-General by title and office to a President by title and office. We need to think about the choice of a system whereby we choose a President as one that Australians can discuss. It should be understood that a President is different in principle from a Governor-General."

Hugh Mackay

Sir Anthony Mason

Noel Pearson

• "[T]he republic for me, is not about who the head of state is. I think the head of state must not be somebody connected with the British Crown, but in saying that, I don't think that is what the republic is all about. The republic is about this opportunity for us to do what they did back in the United States three hundred years ago. That's what the republic represents for me: for us to write a real constitution to which we are all committed."
• "'If most Australians want to vote for the head of state, what's the problem?' 'Most Australians probably like the idea of citizen initiated referenda to impose some kind of tyranny on someone or another, but I'm not sure they ought to have the right to exercise that inclination.'"

George Winterton

Leslie Zines

"[T]he only reason I am in favour of a republic is purely for symbolic reasons. I see no great substantive things following."

Bill Peach

Bill's Republic (MS Word)

• Keynote speech at the "NSW Conference 2002". At the website for the Victorian Branch of the ARM. Much ado about the lost referendum, conspiracies from "Wily John", a certain amount of wishful thinking, and an overdosage of the royal "we". But also thoughts on the Corowa Conference of 2001, direct election, and what might have been.
• "[T]he lowest point of that awful campaign--even lower than the talk-back radio drivel about the hidden agenda and the international Jewish communist banking conspiracy behind the republic--the lowest trick of all was the 'no' campaign advertising--you'll remember James Blundell groaning 'We'll vote "no" in November'--and the persistent implication that if we voted no to this republic, to the politician's republic, that there was another proposal waiting in the wings, a democratic, non-elitist, nonchardonnay sipping republic, and that the people would have their say. Of course, there was no such thing intended and what they were really saying to the people was 'just vote "no" and shut up and bugger off and concentrate on the things you ought to, like the footy and the T.A.B.'"
• "Well, with hindsight we know it would have been a better strategy for the republicans to have stuck together at the Constitutional Convention and insisted on a process that would have let the people have their say, that would have consulted them and asked them what they preferred, and then proposed a model they would vote for. In other words, a plebiscite followed by a referendum."

John Pyke

Reasons Why Australia Should be a Republic

At his website.

Helen Razer

Helen Razer--Viewpoint

• Part of a collection of viewpoints by various "prominent Australians" at the ABC's 1998 Convention website. They were asked "to write...on the theme of the [1998] Convention--that is, about the Republican debate, the Constitution, or the questions of national identity that the debate raises." An ABC-JJJ presenter offers an idiosyncratic perspective.
• "In upholding my own civic responsibility to opine, I happen to say 'Go You Mighty Republicans'. So all you Monarchists can go right back to your search engines NOW or perhaps enjoy the simple pleasure of high-lighting all my State School engendered split infinitives and circulating said to grammatical newsgroups for further dissection."
• Also includes a link to "Education Notes" (also at the ABC site), prepared by Bryan Moloney, on her viewpoint.

Charles Sampford

One and Future Republics: W[h]ither Republicanism? What Kinds of Public Institutions do we need for the 21st Century and Should They Be Republican? (PDF)

• Presented to the Australian Constitutional Futures 2002 conference.
• "Looking back on it now, I see the Republican push as essentially a well meaning and entirely innocuous attempt to peacefully and rationally complete a nineteenth century project--the creation of an independent nation state in the modern mould. All the effective power had been transferred to Australian officials during the first 90 years of federation--all that was required was to transfer the final vestiges of formal power and the symbols of that power to Australian officials and institutions."

Tasmanian University Society for an Australian Republic

Republica

An electronic newsletter where you can "find out about the society, its publications, and general information about an Australian republic".

University of Queensland Australian Republican Club (UQARC)

A Green and Gold Republic By 2001

Amanda Vanstone

Visions for Australian Polity 2020 (PDF)

• Presented to the Australian Constitutional Futures 2002 conference. The title seems to bear no relation to the content, which is mostly about how to achieve a republic.
• "The British monarch is in there by the choice of Australians. We are not facing a situation where the British Royal Family has foisted themselves upon us. Quite the opposite, our Constitution ties them to us. It is not their fault. We did it. We should set them free."
• "Don't take the majority of support for an Australian Head of State for granted. (That's what you do when you shift from quantitative polling to offering models.) It's a fundamental flaw still present in the plan to have a plebiscite to select one of a number of models. We may simply repeat the last disaster by way of different processes. What will happen if each of the models is equally favoured, or none get a majority? I'll tell you what will happen. The constitutional monarchists will be popping champagne. We will be divided again. A divided campaign is a losing one. Clearly the task is first to raise the intensity of desire for an Australian Head of State so that the motivation is there for republicans to unite. Unless that happens we lose."

John Warhurst

Ten Critical Questions in the Republic Campaign

Dated November 2003. At the ARM website.

Anne Witheford

Translating a Republic into Reality: An ARM Perspective on the Task Ahead

Paper delivered to The Women's Constitutional Convention on 29 January 1998. Stored at an archived copy of The Women's Constitutional Convention site at the National Library of Australia.

Women's Electoral Lobby

Position Paper: An Australian Head of State

By Meredith Doig. Also looks at the advantages & disadvantages of four classes of republic models. At WEL's website.

Neville Wran Q.C.

The Australian Republic (missing)

The Whitlam Lecture of November 1997. At the ACTU website.

Yes and More Coalition

Yes and More Coalition's Q & A Page

• Supports direct election of a ceremonial president from a shortlist produced by a joint sitting of the Senate and House of Representatives.
• Note: at an archived copy of the Yes and More Coalition site maintained by the National Library of Australia.

Tony Abbott

Person with the power is Australian, as republicans are well aware (missing)

• Dated 20 October 1999. At the Sydney Morning Herald's site.
• "They're replacing an Australian governor-general appointed like a judge with a president appointed like the Speaker of the Parliament. Who would want that? Only someone whose detestation of the monarch (and the tradition, ritual and faith she stands for) makes getting rid of the Crown the only thing that matters."

A Republic: Good or Bad

At the Family World News site. March 1997.

Australians for Constitutional Monarchy

The ACM Handbook (missing)

The ACM responds to republican claims.

An overview of the ACM's view (missing)

By Lloyd Waddy, the National Convenor of the ACM (taken from The Australian Constitutional Monarchy, edited by Gareth Grainger and Kerry Jones). Opposes both a republic and the blueprint as outlined by the (former) Prime Minister (see below). If Australia must have a republic, would prefer the US model ("we know it is safe and that it works, in its way, and has done so for over two hundred years").

Why Australia should not become a republic (missing)

By Mrs Kerry Jones, Executive Director to ACM.

Philip Benwell

Concerns over Constitutional Change

Address to the cross-bench peers of the House of Lords, London. At the The Monarchist League in Australia's site. ("The fear that I have--indeed the fear that all Loyal Subjects of Her Majesty--should have, is that should the Referendum to make Australia a republic succeed and it is later found that the Constitution cannot be re-written in this manner, The Queen would be placed in the untenable situation where She would through legal means rule a People who have voted to remove Her. Needless to say, there would be an overwhelming backlash of indignation both against The Queen and against Britain.")

Bronwyn Bishop MP

Debunking The Seven Deadly Myths Of The Republican Debate (missing)

The Minister for Aged Care addressed the ACM, Sydney, on 2/2/1999. At the No Republic (Chatswood) site. ("Respectful debate means we don't need Tim Costellos telling Bruce Ruxtons that their time has passed. The voice of older Australians is not only entitled to be heard, but in this the Year of Older Persons, it must be heard.")

Lady Flo Bjelke-Petersen

No Need for a Republic

• Speech for the launch of the election campaign for the 1998 Convention for the candidates for the Queenslanders for Constitutional Monarchy, 8/11/1997. At the The Monarchist League in Australia's site.
• "Republicans cannot make the system they propose any more democratic than it is at present because the great power held by the Governor-General is the power, in the event of crisis, to dissolve the parliament and return the parliamentarians to answer to the people. Nothing could be more democratic than that."

Neville T. Bonner

Why an Australian Constitutional Monarchy: An Indigenous Perspective

An edited version of a speech given to Australians for Constitutional Monarchy on 4 February 1994. At the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site.

Senator Ron Boswell

A Question Of Patriotism

At the Family World News site. March 1997. Senator Boswell does a Plato, composing a dialogue between "Rodney Republic" and "Caroline Constitution".

Alan Fitzgerald

Some Questions That Need to Be Answered About a Republic (missing)

In Vol 1 Issue 2 of the ACM's online "newspaper" Australian Constitutional News.

David Flint

The Australian Constitution (missing)

At the Official "No" Case site. Would have been better titled "The Australian Crown", given that the subject is mainly a defence of that institution. ("Of course the Crown has a British connotation. But it is not the connotation of an English woman. Rather, it is the connotation of a British system. A system of government, developed in Britain and exported from Britain, which the constitutionalist seeks to preserve. And it is from this system that virtually all Australians draw their conception of democratic, parliamentary government. With the exception of those few advocating an executive presidency, this continues to be the source of the dominant political theory in Australia. Thus the Crown is as much a fundamental Australian institution as the Canadian Crown is Canadian."

In Defence of Our Constitution

• An Address to Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, 14 September 1995. Stored at the The Monarchist League in Australia site.
• "The design of the present Australian system may seem anachronistic, but is worthy of a political genius. To constrain the authoritarian potential of a presidential prime minister in control of the House, we have both a Senate and a Governor-General. The Governor-General is required to behave as if he were a constitutional monarch. The office is protected by any appointment and any removal being made by another constitutional monarch, the symbolic Head of State, the Queen. It works better than the two consuls of ancient Rome, who were required to act together."

A Question of Power (missing)

Brief. Refers to the convention's "preferred model", but most of the argument seems more generalised. At the No Republic (Chatswood Branch) site.

The Uncertainties of a President: Appointed or Elected--A Cane Toad Solution? (85K)

• A speech given in Sydney, 27 August 1996. Stored at the The Monarchist League in Australia site. (Another copy here at the ACM site.)
• "No American would have the temerity to refer to their Constitution, drafted one century before ours, as a 'Horse and Buggy' constitution. Neither should we."

Sir Harry Gibbs

The Monarchy and our Constitution

• Address to the Rockhampton branch of the ACM. At the The Monarchist League in Australia's site. Note: the title given above does not actually appear on the text itself, though it does on the MLA webpage listing it.
• "In the circumstances, it seems somewhat over-confident to assert that a republic is inevitable. In fact, throughout the nineteenth century there were influential people in Australia who even then were saying that a republic is inevitable. Let us hope that in another hundred years time, the present predictions of inevitability will still have not been fulfilled."

Our Current Constitutional Set-up

• Sir Harry Gibbs talks to Suzanna Lobez on the ABC's Radio National's The Law Report (18 November 1997). Note: you will have to scroll past a discussion of insurance compensation schemes ("'no-fault' versus negligence") in order to get to Suzanna's talk with Sir Harry.
• The former High Court Chief Justice, "puts the case for retaining our current constitutional structure, which Sir Harry says is 'subtly effective'."

Barbara Greenwood

Barbara Greenwood--Viewpoint

• Part of a collection of viewpoints by various "prominent Australians" at the ABC's 1998 Convention website. They were asked "to write...on the theme of the [1998] Convention--that is, about the Republican debate, the Constitution, or the questions of national identity that the debate raises." A monarchist candidate to the 1998 Convention, observer at the 1976 & 1983 constitutional conventions (and, according to one source, former literary critic to the ABC) gives her perspective.
• "Any major change to the structure of power at the apex of the system of government we have in Australia threatens and undermines the checks and balances carefully put in place, not only by the founding fathers who drew up our constitution, but also by the people of the separate states who voted our federation into being."
• Also includes a link to "Education Notes" (also at the ABC site), prepared by Bryan Moloney, on her viewpoint.

Nick Hobson

The Australian Republic Unplugged Home Page

An on-line version of the booklet The Australian Republic Unplugged, which "provides an in-depth look at former Prime Minister Paul Keating's proposal for a republic by unravelling the contents of his paper titled An Australian Republic--The Way Forward."

The Presidential Power Charts

A view of how the power will shift under an Australian republic. Part of the The Australian Republic Unplugged Home Page.

A Sensible Outcome for the Convention

Proposed back in the days of the Convention to give Australia an Australian Head of State: viz. the Governor-General.

Kerry Jones

ACM's Perspective on the republic Debate

Paper delivered to The Women's Constitutional Convention on 29 January 1998. Stored at an archived copy of The Women's Constitutional Convention site at the National Library of Australia.

"Why We Should All Vote" No Republic

At the Family World News site. March 1997.

Ron Kenyon

Constitutional Reform: To Be or Not to be? That is the Question (missing)

A brief personal view on the republic issue by a Queensland independent election candidate. ("I believe with my whole heart that if we, as Australians, vote for a Republic, then we are giving ourselves and all future Generations away to Foreign Corporations whose only guidelines are Profits and more Profits.")

Michael Kirby (High Court Justice)

Australia's Monarchy: Meeting the People's Needs (42K)

• An edited version of a speech given to the South Australian Chapter of the Australian Society of Labor Lawyers on 12 March 1993. Biblio.
• "'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'"
• Note:unfortunately the site where this essay resided has been taken down.

National Party of Australia

Constitutional Monarchy versus a Republic

At the party's Federal Secretariat website. ("We believe the appointment or election of a President will add an extra political dimension to the Head of State that currently does not exist. This position should not become open to conflicts, tensions, instability, divisiveness and political manipulations.")

Justice Jack Lee

Is the Queen a Foreigner?

• Fairly brief and not much concerned with the title subject (except at the beginning). Stored at the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site.
• "It is claimed by republicans that we are maturing and 'progressing naturally' in becoming a republic, as though becoming a republic is some final stage to which nations aspire. Nothing is further from the truth. There are two main systems of government, constitutional monarchies of which there are about 36 and republics of which there are about 116. Great Britain has had a monarch for a thousand years. The Japanese have had an hereditary emperor for even longer it is claimed. Spain was a republic but just recently turned back to a monarchy and put the King on the throne. The point is that there is certainly nothing special about being a republic. It is simply a form of government that is not a monarchy."

Graham McLennan

An Australian Republic?

• At the Family World News site. February 1998.
• "It is ironic that the American Founding Father and writer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, should write: 'Prudence, indeed would dictate governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.'"

Lucy Sullivan

The Perils of Republics

Looks mostly at the experience of France and the United States. At the website for The Centre for Independent Studies.

Lloyd Waddy QC

Australia's Crowned Republic: Does the Prime Minister get the Crown or Not?

• At the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site.
• "We already live in a crowned republic. The essence of a republic is that power of government proceeds from the governed. Australians selected constitutional monarchy voluntarily and voted for it overwhelmingly when we became a nation in 1901. Our Constitution was not imposed upon us. No blood was shed when we achieved nationhood. Our forefathers and foremothers 'agreed to unite in one indissoluble federal Commonwealth under the Crown'. 'Commonwealth' means Republic--and was the name Cromwell adopted for his short-lived republic in the 17th century."

Monarchy and Mirth: Is the republic a laughing matter?

Dated 26 July 1995. At the No Republic (Kingston) site. Mainly deals with the Keating plans for a republic. ("If it is to be alleged that because she [the Queen] resides in the UK, what are we to make of the present proposals by the Federal Government to amend the citizenship laws to allow Mr Murdoch, who exercises vastly more power and influence in this country than The Queen, to have dual citizenship? If he and 2 million other Australians can have dual citizenship, surely Australians can understand that residing overseas is no disqualification for fulfilling the traditional role of being The Queen of Australia.")

The Role of the Crown in Our System of Governance

At the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site. An essay on a wide range of issues related to a republic. Grouped into sections.

Geoffrey K. White

An Australian Head of State? YES; A Republic? NO (missing)

• Part of a (pro-monarchist) site on the Canadian republic issue. Described in the page's meta-text (you need to view the page's source text to read it) as "A possible solution to the republic-monarchy debate in Australia"
• "Constitutional monarchy is arguably the most successful form of democratic government. Only two of the longest standing democracies are republics (USA and Switzerland - France is on its 5th republic since Europeans settled in Australia), the rest (about 9) are constitutional monarchies, three of them sharing the Crown with Australia. Most of the republics established since the Second World War are simulated constitutional monarchies (SCMs) with parliamentary systems and non-executive heads of state. Examples are Israel, Germany and, fellow Commonwealth member, India."
• Note: The contents of the page linked here keeps changing (albeit the three changes I have noticed over the years thus far are all by Mr White and deal with the Australian republic issue). Consequently, the information and the quote I supply above may not necessarily apply or appear on your own visit.

Philip Benwell

Australia's Constitutional Monarchy: Its benefits and its relevance for the 21st Century and beyond

At the Family World News site. March 1997.

"I honour my God; I serve my Queen; I salute my flag"

At the Family World News site. August 1999. The title refers to the words children used to recite in school throughout Australia. ("Some decades ago someone, somewhere made a decision that it was no longer appropriate for these 'loyalist' sympathies to be narrated. A little later a similar decision was made not to play the Royal Anthem in cinemas and theatres. What began as a little trickle of discontent against the monarchical character of our constitutional arrangements has now turned into a rancorous rage seeking to tear down the very fabric of our Constitution and our Monarchy.")

The Westminster Crown and The Referendum in Australia

An address to the Swinton Circle at Parliament House, Westminster, London, UK, on 3 May 2000. At the No Republic (Kingsford) site. The 1999 referendum, the monarchy, Britain in Europe, and other matters.

Charles A. Coulombe

By the Grace of God

• At the The Monarchist League in Australia's site. An opinion from "an American [& French-Canadian by blood] who is terribly concerned about the state of things in Australia".
• Although classed as a "speech" by the Monarchist League, no date is given. Internal evidence would suggest c.1995 or 1996.
• Note: it's the tone (rather than the content) which gets this one filed here in the Opposing Opinions section (when it might otherwise have been allocated a slot up in the Issues section).

David Flint

The New Establishment--Even More Out of Touch (missing)

• Opening Address to the A.C.M National Conference, All Saints Church Hall, Brisbane, 6 October, 2001. Stored at the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site. (The speech title is taken from a table of contents page.)
• "Anybody can pen a constitution. Well, almost anybody. We have seen it all over the world. Sadly the greater part of constitutions drafted since the French Revolution have proved to be failures. Abject failures."

Jeff Kennett MLA

The Crown and the States

Paper presented to the Samuel Griffith Society in 1993

Michael Kirby (High Court Justice)

Keeping Calm about the Crown--An Australian Perspective of the Republican "Debate"

• Delivered at the 5th William Merrylees Memorial Lecture at Charles Sturt University, NSW, 9/11/1993. Ranges widely: William Merrylees, oaths of allegiance, and the republic issue. At his website at the Law & Justice Foundation of NSW.
• "Let me, therefore, offer my perspective in support of constitutional monarchy. This is not the perspective of Colonel Blimp draped in the Union Jack. Nor is it the text for those who see the Queen of Australia as our ultimate guardian against the politicians, the media and others with their 'knavish tricks' who would mislead and manipulate us. I do not see the Queen, nor do I want to have her, in that role. ... It is probably true to say that a constitutional committee in 1993, starting afresh, would not invent the constitutional monarchy as it works under the Australian Constitution. However, the fact remains that the system works rather well."
• "Another distressing feature of the so-called republican 'debate' is the highly partisan and biased reporting that we have seen about it in the Australian media. ... How can there be a 'debate' if the other point of view is dismissed with contempt and its proponents always described as 'old' or stereotyped as political conservatives and Colonel Blimp types who wrap themselves each night in the Union Jack and pray for King and country before they lull themselves off to sleep to the strains of 'Land of Hope and Glory'. Most people who like our Constitution the way it is are just ordinary decent fellow Australians, with as much right to hold an opinion as any other citizen. And a right to have it heard and understood."

Rev. Fred Nile

Why all Christians should support our Christian Constitutional Monarchy

At the Family World News site. March 1997. Speech given the NSW Legislative Council.

Dr Glenister Sheil

The Constitutional Convention and Growing Up

• Note that the 1998 Convention is barely mentioned. Possibly 18/3/1998. At the The Monarchist League in Australia's site.
• "Our Constitution, Crown and Government have done a lot of growing up since Federation on 1st January, 1901. Admittedly, it took England and Australia 30 years to realise that our Constitution had created a sovereign, independent nation, and that we had stripped the English Monarch of all her powers in Australia and given them to our Governor-General. Our Constitution was written with a view to having an absent Sovereign and the Sovereign did not even visit Australia for our first 54 years!"

Development of the Crown

• At the The Monarchist League in Australia's site. Brief.
• "The Crown has changed its role from representing total power of the Monarch to govern, to today, when Constitutional Monarchy means the Crown represents the denial of total power to govern, and returns the power to the subjects."

Sir David Smith

The Unique Nature of Australia's Constitutional Monarchy

• Address to the ACM National Conference 2000, Pittwater House School, Sydney, 4 November, 2000. Stored at the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site. (The speech title is taken from a table of contents page.)
• "The Australian Crown is indeed unique. It is embodied in the Monarch, who lives elsewhere, and in the Governor-General, who lives amongst us as our Head of State."

Alasdair Webster

Republic versus Monarchy Debate

At the Family World News site. October 1999. Monarchy and the Christian perspective.

The ACM and our Constitution

By Barry O'Keefe QC. "Jottings from an address" to the "No Republic (Kingston)", 24 November 1995. At the No Republic (Kingston) site. The "essence of federation", "crisis of identity", and other "jottings" in relation to the republic issue.

Address to Young Australians Against This Republic

• By Tony Abbott. Melbourne, 24/7/1999. At his website.
• "A sense that things are not what they seem haunts Australia's constitutional debate. There are the 'don't mention the republic' republicans, 'don't mention the Queen' monarchists, monarchists supporting the 'least bad republic' and republicans opposing the 'sham republic'. Most remarkably, there are so-called 'conservatives for an Australian Head of State' who aren't really conservative and don't really want to create an Australian head of state. One might as well set up a group called 'Liberals to elect a Labor Prime Minister'."

Approaching the Centenary: Does Australia Need a New Constitutional Structure?

• By Sir Zelman Cowen. Williamson Community Leadership Program Lecture, 6 November 1991. At the Leadership Victoria website.
• "I am not concerned, one way or another, to argue the case for a republican form of government for Australia. ... My own view is that the central weakness is that under the monarchical system as it has evolved, there is an absentee Head of State and that might be seen to be a curious anomaly in a democratic sovereign society."

Elspeth Cameron--Viewpoint

• By Elspeth Cameron. Part of a collection of viewpoints by various "prominent Australians" at the ABC's 1998 Convention website. They were asked "to write...on the theme of the [1998] Convention--that is, about the Republican debate, the Constitution, or the questions of national identity that the debate raises." A resident of rural Queensland gives her perspective.
• "Appointment and dismissal of a head of state seem less vital to the population in a stable system but the stability is more ensured where the protocols are clear and beyond changes of interpretation at the whim of individuals or interest groups."
• Also includes a link to "Education Notes" (also at the ABC site), prepared by Bryan Moloney, on her viewpoint.

An Encounter with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia

• By Garry De Vries, Pastor. Appeared in the March 1998 issue of Trowel & Sword, the "Periodical for the Edification and Defence of the Reformed Presbyterian Faith and Life in Australia and New Zealand". Constitutionalism, God, and the republic.
• "The late Francis Schaeffer, suggests that 'a constitution is a system of checks and balances, especially on people in power.' Constitutionalism then, is a system of government established to prevent excessive government. It is designed to be a guard for the people against arbitrary and despotic government."

Handy Hints for Movements which support an Australian Republic

• By Nick Hobson. Part of Hobson's The Australian Republic Unplugged page. The content is not particularly pro-either side per se; and some of the hints it gives would be useful to both sides.
• "When espousing the fact that the Queen of Australia lives in the United Kingdom, remember that many notable Australians live overseas on a permanent basis including prominent republican Robert Hughes."
• Another copy can be found at the YorkWA site, though (strangely) retitled: Australian Republican Movement: Hints for Movements which Support an Australian Republic.

Jane Connors--Viewpoint

• By Jane Connors. Part of a collection of viewpoints by various "prominent Australians" at the ABC's 1998 Convention website. They were asked "to write...on the theme of the [1998] Convention--that is, about the Republican debate, the Constitution, or the questions of national identity that the debate raises." An historian & ABC producer gives her perspective.
• "Popular monarchism has exasperated generations of Australian republicans, but it also annoys the constitutional monarchists, who prefer to concentrate on the place of the monarchy in our system of government and ignore what they regard as a trivial and embarrassing interest in the Royal's Family's private lives. ......the first time that one million Australians gathered together in the one place was for the arrival of the Duke and Duchess of York (she's now the Queen Mother) in Sydney Harbour in 1927. ... The republican movement needs to understand that they are asking such people to rewrite a major part of their personal as well as our national history when they contemplate a move to a republic."
• Also includes a link to "Education Notes" (also at the ABC site), prepared by Bryan Moloney, on her viewpoint.

Millennium Dilemma: Constitutional Change in Australia (at the University of Wollongong)
(interviews with legal experts, academics, and other notables on a broad range of constitutional matters, among them the republic issue)

Quentin Bryce

Michael Coper

"[I]f we do directly elect our head of state separately from our political leader, the prime minister, it's inevitable that person will have a sense of popular legitimacy as a result of that election. This would not be the case if it were an appointment rather than an election. ... If we were to have a system in which the real political leader, the prime minister had substantial political power, but the head of state also both perceived himself or herself to have that power (and had substantial residual discretionary power as well), that would be a recipe for a very difficult political conflict, and difficult political situations. We really would be moving to a situation much more like the American system, with a separation of power between the elected legislature and the leader of that body on the one hand, and an elected executive head of state, such as the president, on the other. Now that's radically different from the situation we have at the moment. That's not to say we shouldn't move in that direction, but if we did it would have to be the result of a much more serious and substantial debate than simply over whether we elect or appoint a Governor-General."

Justice Elizabeth Evatt

Justice Michael Kirby

Richard McGarvie

Kim Rubenstein

Cheryl Saunders

Sir Ninian Stephen

Note: the dates given in the interview page for Sir Ninian's Governor-Generalcy ("1972-1982") are incorrect. His term in fact ran from 1982 to 1989.

Sue Tongue

"The Parliament should select the head of state. The people elect the Parliament so they could indirectly elect the head of state by electing the Parliament. To open up the process of popular election could produce the wrong kinds of results. ... People might elect sporting heroes, or people who don't necessarily have the skills and the experience necessary for the position of head of state. A person with money could buy media exposure and get elected. Parliament may be more likely to choose a suitable person ? especially if voting was not along party lines."

Millennium Dilemma: Subject Overview--An Australian Republic?

• A collection of brief views from various legal experts, academics, an ex-High Court judge, an ex-Governor-General, and other notables. One of a number of such overviews at a website run by the Faculty of Law of the University of Wollongong.
• Tony Blackshield: "I was persuaded by the argument that the degree of democratic legitimacy would give the head of state too much real political power. But it is overwhelmingly clear that the Australian people want the head of state directly elected, and if that's what they want, they should have it."
• Hugh Mackay: "There is of course this great irony that when people say they want to elect their own head of state, they say in the next breath, of course we don't want this to be a politician, we don't want this to be an American style, and we don't want it to be a contest between political nominees. Nor do we want it to be a particularly outstanding sports person, or pop entertainer who happens to have captured the public imagination at any time."

The Republic debate will begin anew

By Helen Irving. Original published in The Australian 9/8/2001. Direct election, a title of the head of state, mixed in with a little history. Fairly brief. At Online Opinion's Australian Constitutional Reform site.

Republic or Monarchy?

By Bruce Hannaford. Taken from "a booklet which in turn came from lecture notes used by the author Bruce Hannaford". December 1999 edition. Supplies a long list of reasons against a republic, but also what he considers to be "The Requirements for a Satisfactory Republic".

Leadership in Australia: The Role of the Head of State

• By Sir Zelman Cowen. Williamson Community Leadership Program Lecture, Melbourne, 31 May 1995. At the Leadership Victoria website. Mostly about the title subject, but does turn briefly to discuss the republic issue (and direct election in particular) near the end. Some of the preceding material, however, is not without relevance to the republic issue, notably Sir Zelman's account of his non-role in the opening of the new High Court building in 1980 (and a similar anecdote about Margaret Thatcher).
• "When Mrs Thatcher as prime minister of the United Kingdom at the time of the Falklands victory, took the salute at the victory march in London, a question was properly asked whether this was a role appropriate to the queen as head of state rather than to a prime minister, however much the victory was attributable to her policies and preparedness to take great risk. To many, this ceremony uncomfortably elevated a political leader as head of government to a place in which only an apolitical head of state should stand."

Unbinding the Republic: A Snowy River Leap (MS Word)

• By Judith Brooks. Paper delivered to The Women's Constitutional Convention 2002.
• "The idea of an Australian republic doesn't exactly throb in the public imagination. For most Australians, particularly women, it is simply not a sexy issue. They don't think it's particularly necessary and it's not going to pay the mortgage. I suspect that lying under these utilitarian attitudes is a more complex truth. I contend that Australia is still bound in Empire, stifled by subliminal allegiances to our British heritage and all it seems to have provided for us. We, as a people, are constantly subdued by this. We lack the driving desire to make what I have called a Snowy River Leap into real constitutional reform."
• "The first wave republicans, known in some quarters as the Chardonnay republicans, believed they owned the republic and tried to build it in their image. They created a big enough wave to bring on a referendum but failed to carry even one state. Some of these first waver[er]s are still blaming their advertising campaign, or John Howard, or even worse, the Australian people. Anyone or anything but themselves. We need a genuine change in attitude among leading republicans everywhere."

The Truly Honourable Mr Mack

By Kevin Glancy. Published in the The Issue in July 1999. Report of an interview with Ted Mack. Includes much about the republic issue. Note: the site's index page for the issue this article appeared in reports an entirely different title for this article: "Ted Mack--Courage Under Fire".

Off with the royal head, students say (missing)

• By Julia Baird. Dated 9 November 1999. At the Sydney Morning Herald's site. Three SCEGGS history students voice their opinion to a Sydney journalist of the republic issue.
• "The Queen should pass on the baton to an Australian head of state, according to these girls, who say knowledge of Australian history leaves no other choice. ... History had shown us that in times of war, we had been 'dudded' by Britain when it refused to send military assistance, said Sophie Ashton, also 15."

Memories of a Monarchist--now a Trappist Judge

By Justice Lloyd Waddy. Paper presented to the Samuel Griffith Society in June 2002. Some "random reminiscences" on the republic issue by a monarchist and former national convenor of the ACM.

Republicanism and the Repudiation of post-1788 Australia

• By Dr Geoffrey Partington. Paper presented to the Samuel Griffith Society in July 1999. At their website. Australia's ethnic composition & the monarchy, republican feminists, and other issues.
• "Malcolm Booker made the incredible claim: 'The Union Jack is a symbol of imperial rule and oppression, especially among people in our own Asia-Pacific region. The present flag gives this symbol pride of place, and it cannot be expected to win the devotion of all those people and their descendants who have come to this country to find freedom from domination and exploitation'. Tens of thousands of people have defied their own governments, pirates and sharks in and out of the water, to get away from their 'own Asia-Pacific region' and to reach lands where the Union Jack is part of the national flag."

Republicanism as an Intellectual Movement in Multicultural Australia

• By Jessica Stewart. An honours thesis. University of Sydney, Department of Government. Bibliography. (Note: written in 1991.)
• "Support for republicanism crosses the political spectrum. Don Chipp, also a contributer to Republican Australia?, and a former Liberal member of Federal parliament from 1969 to 1977 who left the party to form the Australian Democrats, believes that republicanism is a real issue and a sensible one to discuss. However, the term 'republican Australia' must be clarified because misunderstanding is 'the greatest impediment likely to be placed along the paths of logical debate.' In his interpretation, it means reformation of the constitution and the government and he voices probably the biggest issue to come out of 1975 in seriously questioning the continuation of the power of a non-elected person (the Governor-General) to dismiss an elected government.

  "There must be a sound rational base to justify a change of this magnitude in the Australian political system and he asks some fundamental questions to help discover if it is necessary at all. What is the best system of government for Australia? Should we preserve the Westminster model? Is our system working satisfactorily for those of us who want public acceptability for our elected representatives?"

Republicanism Means More Than Removing The Queen: Lessons From America 1776-1787

• By Ian Holloway. Originally at one of the Real Republic sites, now at the ACM's website. Footnote to the quote below: the US president is not chosen by popular election but by an electoral college. It is the members of that college who are now--they were not so originally--chosen by popular election.
• "Australia in 1999 is in almost exactly the same predicament as were the American colonies in 1776 when they foreswore their allegiance to George III. The American Founding Fathers' decision to dig deep into the meaning of republicanism led them to forge a new constitution unlike anything that had ever gone before. As 'We, the People of Australia' contemplate foreswearing allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II of Australia, all we are being offered is rebranding monarchy, complete with the concentration of power in the new monarch, the Prime Minister. If we are indeed in the same position as were the Americans in 1776, then we ought remind ourselves that the framers of the Australian Commonwealth Constitution, having chosen to model theirs upon the constitution of the United States, deliberately left out its four most fundamental elements. These were: popular election of the executive head of government, the separation of the branches of government, the sovereignty of the people, and a bill of rights limiting governmental power."

An Estimate of Costings for a Republic

Author unknown. At the The Monarchist League of Australia site. A monarchist view of how much a republic will cost.

How Much will a Republic Cost?

By Nick Hobson. At the The Australian Republic Unplugged Home Page.

"Almighty God" invading secular territory again? (missing)

• By Frances Eodelyn Loeber. At the website of the Atheists Foundation of Australia. A submission to the February 1998 Convention. Objects (in no uncertain terms!) to the inclusion of the word "God" in the existing and new preambles.
• "To include 'God' in the Constitution is discrimination in favour of the beliefs of one group over another, which is not internationally ethically acceptable. ... With reference to the above-quoted preamble to the Constitution, I am a person of South Australia, and it is a filthy lie, a defamation, and a denigration of my most fundamental personal beliefs to state in any document that I am 'humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'. I do no such thing!"

The Australian Constitution Preamble (missing)

A letter to the Prime Minister sent on 12 March 1999 by the National Alliance of Christian Leaders. At the Australian Christian Coalition website.

Constitutional Preamble--Giving God Constitutional Status?

By Frank Brennan. Father Brennan speaks (briefly) to Susanna Lobez on the Law Report of ABC's Radio National in February 1998. (Then continues on with a discussion of Israel's religious problems.)

Does a Preamble Need a God?

By Dr Marion Maddox. Brief research note at the Department of the (Federal) Parliamentary Library site. ("The inclusion of God has so far proved remarkably uncontroversial, compared with the debate which it generated in the 1890s' Constitutional drafting. Indeed, so little discussion has it aroused that 'With hope in God' is one of the few clauses to have survived unamended from the Prime Minister's draft Preamble to the present proposed wording.")

A Preamble: The Issues

• By Sir Harry Gibbs. Dated August 1999. At the Samuel Griffith Society site. Looks at the issues surrounding a preamble in the light of the 1998 Convention's recommendations. Although issues do get discussed, enough opinion is aired in this essay to get it filed here (rather than in Issues and Analysis).
• "The reference to God was one of the few matters in the Preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act that excited discussion in the Constitutional Conventions ofthe 19th Century, and the fact that the reference was to be made influenced the framers of the Constitution in inserting s.116, which protects religious freedom."

A Proposed Preamble to the Australian Constitution

By Zita Antonious, a Race Relations Commissioner. At the AustLII site.

Principles we hope to find in the new preamble (missing)

Media release by Senator Natasha Stott Despoja: 23 March 1999. At the Australian Democrats' republic news site.

Report on the Constitutional Centenary Foundation's Preamble Quest

By the Constitutional Centenary Foundation. After the 1998 Convention ended but before the bills were drafted, the CCF invited members of the public "to give their views on the recommendations of the [Convention] and the way in which they should be expressed in the preamble." They were also "invited to write a preamble of their own, if they wanted to do so". This report documents the results. It is divided into an overview, eight sections (including "Organising the Quest", "The Participants", "General Observations", "Specific Proposals", and "Selected Preambles"), and four appendices. At an archived copy of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation site maintained by the National Library of Australia.

Choosing a Governor-General

Choosing our next head of state: Why we need to spell out the job and develop a transparent selection process (MS Word)

By Sandy Killick. Paper delivered to The Women's Constitutional Convention 2002.

Choosing a President
(Popular election vs parliamentary election, etc)

An Argument for Democracy: Implications for Australian Democracy of an Elected President

• By Chris Gallus MP. Paper delivered to The Women's Constitutional Convention on 29 January 1998. Stored at an archived copy of The Women's Constitutional Convention site at the National Library of Australia.
• "If we want to keep the stability and the status quo, we should not elect a President. If it is democracy we want, there is no other option."

Achieving an Australian Head of State

By Felicity Hampel. Paper delivered to The Women's Constitutional Convention on 29 January 1998. Mostly about how a president might be chosen. Hampel favours the ARM model. Stored at an archived copy of The Women's Constitutional Convention site at the National Library of Australia.

Bishop Browning and the Republic

"Bishop George Browning has come out against a popularly elected head of state and has opted rather for a two-thirds vote of Federal politicians." A short statement published in the Anglican News of February 1999. At the Anglican Diocese of Canberra & Goulburn site.

Can we be trusted with the Vote? Parliament, not the People's Republic, Overboard

• By Phil Cleary. At his own website.A response to an article by Shaun Carney in The Age in March 2002.
• "Although there is overwhelming evidence that people want to elect their own president, many media commentators cannot cast off their antiquated paternalism and say they trust Australians with the vote. Rather than dwelling on the shortcomings of the 'no republic' case and Howard's role in its success, commentators should be trying to articulate what kind of republic it is that ordinary Australians want."

Choosing the President of an Australian Republic: The Case for Parliament (missing)

• By Gareth Evans QC MP. Speech to the NSW Bar Association Debate, Sydney, 3 October 1996. At his old website. (His new website is here but does not seem to yet have this speech.)
• "My brief tonight is to argue the case for the President of an Australian Republic being chosen by the Parliament, rather than directly elected by the people. I am happy to do just that--not least because this was, after all, a central element in the 'minimalist' proposal for constitutional change that the Labor Party developed in Government, which I have publicly supported, and for which very powerful arguments can be made."

Direct Election

• By Peter Botsman. Invokes some of the figures from the 1890s conventions to make a point about directly electing a president. At his own website.
• "I agree for once with Deakin, let the Abraham Lincolns' and Mary Robinsons' aspire to become Prime Minister with real power, accountability and control. A directly elected President is but a cruel trick to appease those who are disillusioned with the political process, but it transfers no power or knowledge to them."

Electing the President--Alternative Models

By John Pyke. A candidate for the 1998 Convention election looks at the issue of popular vs parliamentary election. Also examines various hybrid models. At the author's Constitutional Convention campaign website.

How to Elect the President (MS Word)

• By Dr Jocelynne A. Scutt. Paper delivered to The Women's Constitutional Convention 2002.
• "The majority of Australians want to elect the President. This expression of democracy is worth supporting for many reasons, not the least because it confirms a wish of the vast bulk of the population to be involved in political decision-making."

Let's Give Democracy a Chance: Some Suggestions

By Peter Reith. Covers (amongst other issues) an "elected Head of State". (Also State initiated referendums, CIR (aka direct democracy), "elections consequent to Senate blocking", & four-year terms.) Paper presented to the Samuel Griffith Society in May 2003.

Letter to the Bendigo Advertiser

By Simon Dillon. Published 17/8/1999. At his website. Independents and directly elected presidents.

Mary Robinson was a fluke: Some issues relating to women and an Australian Head of State

By Eve Mahlab. Paper delivered to The Women's Constitutional Convention on 29 January 1998. Mostly about how a president might be chosen. The title is an allusion to the way the Irish Republic chooses its presidents: by direct election. Mahlab favours a variation on the McGarvie model. Stored at an archived copy of The Women's Constitutional Convention site at the National Library of Australia.

The Mirage of Direct Election

• By Greg Craven. At the ARM site. A response to Peter Reith's proposals for a directly elected presidency. Originally published in The Australian 4/8/1999.
• "Predictably, the champion of Australian democracy is mounted upon the plunging steed of direct election. Mr. Reith clearly has followed the republican debate closely enough to understand that there are two insuperable obstacles to any such proposal. First, a presidential election would require such financial, media and organization resources that only a political party could undertake it. Consequently, a directly elected president would always be political. Secondly, a directly elected president would enjoy a massive electoral mandate. This would mean that he or she would be a rival for power with the elected Prime Minister, leading to disastrous constitutional instability."

Notes for the speech delivered by the Hon Tim Fischer for Visions for a Nation

By Tim Fischer. Speech notes. 20/10/2001. Stored at the website for The Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre. (What appears to be another copy can be found here at the ARM website.)

Options for Choosing a Head of State (PDF)

• By Helen Irving. Presented to the Australian Constitutional Futures 2002 conference. Direct election, the powers of a president, and other associated matters.
• "Overall, however, the dominant view on the referendum is that something went wrong with either buying or selling the parliamentary method of choosing the Head of State. This might, in its own way, be part of the truth about what happened in 1999. But I want to propose a different explanation. The 1999 referendum would have failed even with a direct- election model for choosing the Head of State. There are a number of reasons for saying this, but essentially, it failed, because it made no sense. It failed because it is impossible simply to graft a republican head onto a monarchist body, and people sensed this. To say that what we need to do now is work on finding a satisfactory means of choosing the head of state is for the tail to wag the dog. The choice of Head of State is, in my view, only one among many other questions we must first ask about how Australians might amend their Constitution at the start of the 21st century."

A People's Head of State (PDF)

• By Brian Galligan. At the website for the Victorian Branch of the ARM. Professor Galligan puts the case for a popularly elected president (as well as asking "why was a proposal that most people did not want put to referendum?").
• "The model put to the people in [the 1999] referendum mixed together two separate things: certifying the death of the monarchy and designing the new republican head of state. On offer was what we might appropriately call the 'politicians' president'--a head of state to be selected by the prime minister, endorsed by parliamentarians, and able to be summarily dismissed by the prime minister. This model divided the republicans. In support were those who gave primacy to formally registering the death of the monarchy, including republican Don Quixotes still tilting at exaggerated images of monarchical rule and British influence. Opposed were republicans like me who did not like the model, and 'republicans-Ñand more', or self-styled 'real republicans', who wanted to use the occasion to advance other constitutional and aspirational agendas."

The powers of the head of state

Transcript of a speech by Patrick O'Brien (spiced with periodic interjections from other delegates) to the Constitutional Convention in February 1998 arguing for direct election. (Note: the date of "02 March 1998" (ie 2/3/1998) given on the webpage should probably be "3/2/1998"!) At an archived copy of the Real Republic site.

Republicanism in an Age of Global Terrorism

• By Peter Botsman. Presented to the Australian Constitutional Futures 2002 conference. The early part is about Oliver Wendell Holmes & Andrew Inglis Clark, while the later part is largely about the Israeli experiment with directly elected prime ministers and the lessons for Australia. At his own website.
• A PDF version is here at the ACF2002 site.

Reviving the Republic

• By Lindsay Tanner. Speech to the Victorian Conference of the ARM 27/10/2002. At the website for the ACT Branch of the ARM. (A PDF version is available at the Victorian Branch's website, and also here at Tanner's own site.)
• About the future of the republic issue & direct election. Also sketches out a suggested model for a directly elected presidency (6-year term, no more than two terms, byelections to fill casual vacancies, dismissal the House of Representatives (but leading to a byelection, which in turn would lead to the House of Representatives being dissolved should the dismissed incumbent was reelected)).
• "Our starting point must be to accept the umpire's decision. The Australian people rejected a Republic in 1999. We should not seek to rationalise this outcome. We should accept it at face value. Failing to accept the clearly expressed will of the people would be directly contrary to the core ethos which republicanism is supposed to represent. This leads us to a simple conclusion. If a new proposal for a Republic is to succeed, it must be fundamentally different from that rejected by the people in 1999. In particular, it will have to incorporate direct election of the president. The parliamentary appointment model is dead, and we should not waste our energies trying to revive it."
• "Instead of starting with the primary aim of minimum change, we should have the core objective of maximum accountability."

Thinking Practically About a Republic (PDF)

• By Greg Craven. Presented to the Australian Constitutional Futures 2002 conference. Direct election, the powers of a president, and other associated matters.
• "[A]ttempting to devise models of direct election that will tempt conservative republicans is quite futile. It would be like trying to procure a sufficiently attractive elephant, in the hope that one could persuade one's dog to conclude a match."
• "In terms of design, direct election, let alone direct election in company with a range of other constitutional innovations, is a dead duck. It never will be supported by republican conservatives, and its adoption as a referendum model simply will delivery the conservative wing of the republican movement into the arms of the monarchists."

Why Election of the Head of State by a Two-Thirds Majority of Parliament is better for Australian Women

• By Jenny Macklin MP. Paper delivered to The Women's Constitutional Convention on 29 January 1998. Stored at an archived copy of The Women's Constitutional Convention site at the National Library of Australia.
• "...we are more likely to have a female Head of State if she is elected by a two-thirds majority of Parliament, than if she is directly elected."

Why Elitists Shouldn't Wet Their Pants About the Prospect of Direct Election of an Australian President

By John Pyke. At his website. A rebuttal of arguments expressed against direct election.

The Crown

Colonies to Commonwealth: the Evolutionary Crown

• By Bruce Knox. At the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site.
• "Here we have 'constitutional monarchy' in its colonial implementation: the adaptation of the institution which had reached a classic stage in England as late as 1841. Its development has continued into the present non-colonial age. It was indispensable to the conversion of self-governing colonies into 'Dominions' in the twentieth century; and its position has been enhanced, not diminished, by measures and practice up to the present day, confirming, not creating, independence."

"Constitutionalism"

Australia, Canada, And The Constitutional Impossibility Of "Managed Change"

By Ian Holloway. At the ACM site. Compares the Canadian experience of constitutional change (eg the Meech Lake Accord) with the one Australian one over the republic issue.

Australia, the Republic and the Perils of Constitutionalism

• By Ian Holloway. The Canadian experience and the perils of opening Pandora's box re the republic issue. Paper presented to the Samuel Griffith Society in August 1998.
• "The experience of Canada, whose unhappiness should serve as our natural constitutional laboratory, must surely teach us that once a Constitution is opened up, especially in a rights conscious society, [author's emphasis] as ours is rapidly becoming, it becomes a Pandora's box."

On the Monarchists' Maxim: "If it Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It."

• By Leighton McDonald. Academic paper. In Federal Law Review Vol. 26 No. 2. Stored at the archived copy of the Federal Law Review at the National Library of Australia.
• "It is often said that the great innovation of America's eighteenth century constitution-makers was not their acceptance of the ideal of constitutionalism but their insistence that legal constraints on government be subject to alteration, breaking free from the hold of divine law and natural right theories."

Gender (see also "Women & a Republic" below)

To what extent should gender be an issue in the "Head of State" debate?

By Gladys Berejiklian. Paper delivered to The Women's Constitutional Convention on 29 January 1998. Stored at an archived copy of The Women's Constitutional Convention site at the National Library of Australia.

Independence & an Australian Republic

Australia in the Twenty-First Century: An Independent and Self-Determining Nation

• By Barry O'Keefe. At the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site.
• "The arguments advanced for changing our Australian Constitution from its present form, in which a constitutional monarchy is the model, to a republican model (the details of which are as yet substantially undefined), include the one that unless and until Australia is a republic we cannot have our own national identity, nor can we be independent and self-determining."
• "Australia is, and has for some time been, an independent and self-determining nation in every sense of the word. Australia as a nation was never a colony, although each of the States of Australia had colonial origins . Our Constitution is the product of the finest Australian legal and political minds, exercised over the last part of the nineteenth century, hammered out in the foundry of the Constitutional Conventions and presented for adoption as our Constitution. It is an Australian Constitution formulated by Australians, for Australians and the fact that, if one wishes to resort to sterile legalism, it is an enactment of the Parliament at Westminster, does not detract from its Australian character nor give to it any sense of being a foreign product imposed on the Australian people."

International Profile

Time to tell the world we're free (missing)

By Rawdon Dalrymple, who argues "By voting for a republic, Australia will lay to rest its image as immature and subservient". Published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9/8/1999.

Kind of Head of State
(Should the PM be HoS? Do we need one at all? Etc)

Does the Republic Need a President?

• By Michael Purvis. 27 August 1999. At the Workers Online site.
• "Becoming a republic would mean cutting the last link with Britain so the Queen would no longer be our head of state. And without the Queen there would be no role for her representative in Australia, the Governor-General. So who then would become our head of state? There would appear to be several good reasons for appointing the Prime Minister, who is already head of government, to be also the head of state."

A Headless State

By Ron Bunton. Canvasses (post-referendum) the idea of whether we need a head of state at all. At Online Opinion's Australian Constitutional Reform site. ("A headless republic would offer the ultimate minimalist model, clearly avoiding the danger of an elected presidency becoming an alternative and destabilising source of power.")

It's time for all our republicans to lose their heads (missing)

• By Brian Regan. Dated 25 August 1999. At the Sydney Morning Herald's site. An SMH subeditor has summarised the theme of this essay best: "If we can do without a British head of state, we don't need an Australian one either".
• "While the absence of a head of state would necessitate some legal innovations, it solves the current republican impasse between the instability of having an elected president with his or her own electoral mandate and agenda, versus the appointment of political cronies to a comfortable sinecure."

A Real Head of State

By Bryan Palmer. Canvasses (post-referendum) the idea of whether the prime minister should be head of state as well as head of government. At Online Opinion's Australian Constitutional Reform site. ("Tragically, the republicans were divided [at the 199 referendum] over a trifling and inconsequential detail, whether the new head of State should be appointed or elected. Few seemed to realise, regardless of how the job is filled the new head of State would be a puppet of the Prime Minister.")

National Identity & the Republic Issue

Australian Identity: the Law and the Individual

By Jack A. Lee QC (a former Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW). At the The Monarchist League in Australia's site. ("Our total identity from a legal standpoint can be summed up as one of complete independence, with representative government, subject to the rule of law, the law being the law made by Australians for Australians and with the Queen as a symbol of our stability. I ask you: why would you want to change that identity?")

The National Identity of Australia

By Geoffrey Partington. At the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site. ("Nationality and national identity are contested concepts, rather than unambiguous attributes such as height and weight. The Duke of Wellington was once greeted as the greatest living Irishman on the grounds that he had assuredly been born in Ireland. His reply was that the birth of Jesus Christ in a stable did not make him a horse; nor did his own accident of birth make him any less an Englishman.")

Presidential Qualifications

Dual Nationality and an Australian Republic

By Nick Hobson. At the The Australian Republic Unplugged Home Page. Problems of citizenship, dual nationality, divided allegiance, and s44(i) of the Constitution under the February 1998 Convention's proposed republican model, with special reference to the report of the parliamentary committee into "aspects" of s44.

Powers of the Head of State
["Reserve" powers, codification, etc]

The Hidden Agenda of a Republic

By Rev. David Mitchell. At the Family World News site. August 1999. Short (and the title does not really reflect the content, although it does allude to a publications, then forthcoming, by the same author). Various views about s58 in the context of the republic issue (and the 1999 Bipartisan model in particular. Some may need a dose of salt. ("'According to his discretion' does not give the Governor-General a dictatorial power to do just as he pleases. He must act in the Queen's name. Therefore, he is bound by the Coronation Oath to withhold assent when, in his opinion, a proposed law is not in accordance with the law of God.")

Powers of the New Head of State: Full Codification and Limitation (missing)

By Gareth Evans QC MP. Address to the 1998 Constitutional Convention, Canberra, Tuesday 3 February, 1998. At his old website. (His new website is here but does not seem to yet have this speech.)

Removal of the Head of State from Office?

Removal of an Australian Head of State

A fact sheet from the ACM. "Constitutional Monarchy Vs Republic".

Section 128 (the amendment power)

Tying up the Loose Ends of the Constitutional Convention: Is it a Four or a Six? Time to Call in the Third Umpire

By Julian Leeser. Looks at the implications of the penultimate paragraph of s128 (and in particular the "or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto" phrase) for the November 1999 republican referendum, which may affect the number of States needed to approve the republic bill. Published in the UNSW Law Journal's thematic issue on the 1998 Convention. This online version is stored at the AustLII site. (Which also has another copy here at the older version of the site.)

The States

The Effects of a "Yes" Vote on the States

By Edward O'Farrell. Stored at the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site.

Queensland and the New Australia Act (Request) Bill 1999

Bill to make Queensland a Republic

By Rona Joyner. Text of a letter by Mrs Joyner to the Qld Attorney-General concerns a bill before the Queensland Parliament ("New Australia Act (Request) Bill 1999") to amend the Australia Acts so as to sever links with the Crown should the November referendum be passed. She suggests that "This is a Bill of the type that requires a referendum under Section 53 of the Queensland Constitution, and so it cannot lawfully be put into effect unless and until the people give approval through this referendum." (Section 53 concerns bills attempting to alter or abolish the office of State Governor.) At her website.

The Forgotten Issue: The States and the Republic (missing)

By David Russell. At the No Republic Victoria site. Looks at the Australia Acts and other potential barriers to amending State constitutions with respect to the republic issue.

The System of Government
(Westminster system, parliamentary government vs executive presidency, extending direct election to government boards, etc)

The Movement to an Australian Republic: A Missed Opportunity

• By Dr Suri Ratnapala. Not so much to do with the republic per se as a thoughtful look at what the author considers to be "four major flaws of the current constitutional system". Paper presented to the Samuel Griffith Society in August 1998.
• "The key to ministerial responsibility to Parliament is the capacity of members [of Parliament] to act independently of the Executive. Unfortunately the Westminster system, as it has developed, leaves no room for such independence."

Over Powered and Under Legitimized: Redesigning the Australian Head of State (RTF)

• By Campbell Sharman. Presented to the Year 2000 Conference of the Australasian Political Studies Association (APSA). At the APSA2000 website. Looks at the powers of the head of state and of executive government in general in the context of parliamentary government and the republic issue.
• "The British solution [ie parliamentary government] meant that executive power had been democratized but not really checked ... The lack of constitutional specification of the new rules meant that the actual operation of executive power was masked behind a series of understandings and arcane procedures. The monarch as head of state appeared to have the dominant share of executive power even though, on most occasions it was exercised at the discretion of the head of government and a parliamentary ministry. This is a foible of the British system and the anachronistic lack of constitutional clarity in the operation of the executive and the relative power of the head of state and head of government has become the hallmark of those countries which have inherited the British parliamentary tradition including Australia."
• "At heart, Australia's problem with executive power is more fundamental than whether we are a republic or a monarchy. The executive remains the most dangerous branch and we have inadequate constitutional powers to check it and monitor its operation. Both substantively and symbolically we need a head of state whose powers are constitutionally circumscribed, accurately described and based in political legitimacy. Any other combination represents a denial of accountability and is an invitation for trouble. Rectifying this problem is the most urgent task for constitutional reform."

The People's Case (missing)

By Patrick O'Brien. "Democratic & Anti-Democratic Ideas in Australia's Constitutional Debate". Four chapters (chapters 5-8), plus the prologue & epilogue, of a book by the late Professor O'Brien. The chapters online are largely a critique of the Westminster system. At the Paddy's Place site.

The Republic: Is there a Minimalist Position?

• By David Russell QC. A look at the "current failings of the present system" and the failings of the minimalist republican position, arguing that the former "come in large part from the absence of checks and balances on the executive. If that be correct, it follows that remedial action requires either the restoration of the former checks and balances, or substitution of new ones. The changes proposed as part of a possible move to a republic involve moves in entirely the opposite direction."
• Paper presented to the Samuel Griffith Society in August 1998.
• "The American approach is to regard all government as potentially bad and capable of being an instrument of oppression if in the wrong hands. As a result, the United States Constitution contains a series of institutional checks and balances.... The British approach has tended to be far less fearful of the possibility of government falling into the wrong hands and needing potential restraint, and more inclined to blame failings of particular governments upon individuals rather than structures. ... Australian constitutional theory (or at least what passes for the 'progressive' component of it) tends to accept the British approach, coupled with a lament that appropriate development towards nationhood has been retarded by a 'horse and buggy' Constitution which the people are unreasonably reluctant to modernise (by conferring more powers upon the Commonwealth government and, within that government, the executive branch)."

Want an Australian republic? Let's get rid of the oligarchs first

• By Tony Moore. Originally an article in The Australian, 19/12/2002. At Online Opinion's Australian Constitutional Reform site.
• "Missing from the 1999 referendum about a minimalist republic were issues of citizenship, democracy, participation, diversity and culture. It's time we discussed radical ideas that might go to make up a maximalist republic, such as election for all federal and state government public boards."
• "The reality of the Australian polity, like many representative democracies, is rule by oligarchy. Simply voting for a parliamentary representative every three years does not seem to give citizens a sense of control over government and its institution[s]. In an era of rigid party discipline, the stacking of parties with obedient hacks and the growing presidential style of rule by prime ministers, we truly are subjects, as monarchy implies."

Who is Head of State?
[Governor-General vs the Queen]

Australia's Head of State

By Sir David Smith. Sir David explains why he believes the Governor-General is Australia's "head of state". Video address to the A.C.M National Conference, All Saints Church Hall, Brisbane, 6 October, 2001. Stored at the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site. (The speech title is taken from a table of contents page.)

But We Already Have an Australian Head of State

By Sir David Smith. A paper written for the 1998 Convention title "The Role of the Governor-General: Our Australian Head of State". Stored at the Australian Monarchist League site.

The Governor-General is Our Head of State

By Sir David Smith. Stored at the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site. ("[T]he Australian Constitution does not refer to the Head of State; the Head of State is the person who performs all of the duties of the Head of State; the Queen has never performed any duties as AustraliaÕs Head of State; such constitutional duties as the Queen does perform are as Sovereign and Queen of Australia and not as Head of State".)

Is there an Australian Head of State?

A fact sheet from the ACM. " Constitutional Monarchy Vs Republic".

Who is Australia's Head of State?

At the website for the ARM. Makes a quite good case for why the Queen (rather than the Governor-General) is Australia's present Head of State. Also links to a transcript of a Four Corners interview with Sir Anthony Mason, the former Chief Justice, on the same issue.

Women & a Republic (see also "Gender" above, and "Women Under a Republic" in the Issues & Analysis section)

Is the Republic a Women's Issue? (MS Word)

• By Sarah Brasch. Paper delivered to The Women's Constitutional Convention 2002.
• "If women's issues are defined as being those which advance only or mainly women's interests such as paid maternity leave, childcare, access to reproductive technology and the like, then the Republic is clearly not a women's issue. But it is an issue for women in as far as 'constitutional change' is a topic in which women should have a keen interest. Constitutional change is the only way which women will achieve lasting change for themselves, starting at the top, which will benefit them in the long term and enshrine their rights and status as equal citizens."

Republican

• Australian Republic Movement
• A Just Republic
• Republic Now

Monarchist

• The Australian Monarchist League
• Australians for Constitutional Monarchy

Discovering Democracy

The Role of Governors in the Australian Political System

A Discovering Democracy discussion forum. Took place 1-12/9/2003. At his Adult Learning Australia website. Transcript of discussion plus background paper by the late Richard McGarvie. Participants included Greg Craven and Malcolm Mackerras. Includes discussion of the McGarvie republican model.

Affairs of State

The Australian Republic Debate (missing)

Formerly a discussion forum on the republic issue presented by the above-mentioned outfit, a "public affairs and government relations firm". Now "converted to 'read only' format so as to provide a snapshot for future reference."

Nick Hobson

The Australian Republic Debate

A discussion forum provided by the Real Republic group at the Paradigm4 Community Conference site.

Online Opinion

Frameset for Discussion

A discussion forum provided by the Online Opinion site.

The Republic Forums

The Republic Forums

Discussion forums on various republic topics (eg models, power, election process, etc). Provided by the Democratic Alternative for the Australian Republic site.

Usenet Newsgroups

aus.politics (republic issue)

aus.legal (republic issue)

• I should have really put these two up long ago but I've held back, in part because all too often more heat than light can be generated by a Usenet discussion, and in part because the republic issue is merely one of a wide range of topics dealt with on these groups. Were you to drop in (so to speak) for a peek on any given day chances are you might not find any discussion of republic matters at all!
• For those who have no idea what it is, Usenet can be thought of as a kind of free-wheeling global bulletin board. Many websites have local chatboards, and all newspapers have Letters pages, but Usenet truly spans the globe, and carries not merely dozens but thousands upon thousands of newsgroups covering just about every conceivable topic.
• The two links above jump to pages organised by discussion thread (newest threads first, oldest ones are last; but within each thread the posts are ordered the other way: oldest first, newest last).
• Note: the links here do not plug directly into your webclient's newsgroup facility. Many users probably do not even have their Netscape or Internet Explorer program configured properly to use those, and in any case messages are only available on news servers for a few weeks. After that they expire to make room for others. Instead these links are to the Dejanews website, which (providentially) archives Usenet newgroups. That will give access to all posts on those groups dating back to c.1996.
• "All"? Well...not quite. To make life simpler for the casual visitor I've applied a filter using Dejanews's search tool to try to weed out the 80-90% of posts having nothing to do with the issue of an Australian republic. This filtering process is fairly simplistic and far from foolproof, so please don't expect miracles! There will undoubtedly be some threads it's missed, just as it will doubtless dig up the odd one or two which will have nothing to do with the subject of a republic at all.
• Now several words of warning and advice:
  • Both the above newsgroups are unmoderated (=uncensored). In aus.politics especially you will meet up with opinion of every conceivable shade, much of it polite, but some of it less so; and a few may occasionally express their views in the sorts of terms and in the kind of language calculated to offend. Be warned!
  • Don't expect polished essays and don't go looking for pearls of wisdom. You may find a few, but you will probably have to wade through a lot of waffle first. What you will find are the opinions, views, and ideas of a much wider spectrum of people, especially of the more ordinary sort, than on some of the other webpages linked here.
  • Dejanews will also allow you to post to newsgroups, but you will first need to get one of their accounts first. Such accounts are free. Those who do wish to post their own messages but have never done so before, and particularly if they don't know what "IMHO" or "LOL" mean, or what a smiley is, are strongly advised to first read up on Usenet "netiquette" and conventions. These can be found on Usenet itself, amongst other places. (If you fancy the tongue-in-cheek view, try the Emily Postnews essay.) Fair warning: some old hands can be notoriously unforgiving with "newbies" and other blunderers!
  • Dejanews has recently revamped its site, and the message pages are now...well, "cramped" to say the least! If you want to give the message text more space to spread out while you read it, pop down to the bottom of the message and choose "View original Usenet format".

Women for an Australian Republic

Chat: Women for an Australian Republic (missing)

"Where are Australian women and girls talking about the Republic and the Preamble on-line?" Addresses for mailing lists and discussion sites, some specialising on particular kinds of republic.

Kim Beazley: Doorstop Interview (missing)

• Kim Beazley outlines his vision of the process leading to a republic to Radio 6PR Perth. Transcript. Hosted at the ALP site.
• "JOURNALIST: I mean, you'd have to have a Constitutional Convention to work out what kind of direct election... BEAZLEY: Oh, no. ... I think two plebiscites and then a referendum. The Constitution makes quite clear how a referendum proposal is designed. It is designed by Parliament."

Kim Beazley: Interview with Fran Kelly (missing)

• Kim Beazley talks about the republic referendum and discusses the 3-stage process he outlined on referendum night. Transcript of the ABC Radio National's Daybreak program (8 November 1999). Hosted at the ALP site.
• "BEAZLEY: That's why I say we need a three-stage process. We need, firstly, to do people the courtesy of ascertaining whether or not they want a republic."

Kim Beazley: Interview with Peter Maher, Neil Mitchell, & Howard Sattler (missing)

Kim Beazley discussed the aftermath of the referendum ("JOURNALIST: ... does this mean Australia is a cowardly country? BEAZLEY: No, I don't think so. JOURNALIST: You said we'd be cowardly if we voted 'No'. BEAZLEY: Oh ... we were campaigning.") & the process he envisages for proceeding further on the republic issue ("JOURNALIST: ... Are you still going to go on with a plebiscite to allow for a referendum on a republic? BEAZLEY: Of course.") on Radio 6PR, Perth, and 3AW Melbourne, 7 November 1999. Transcript. Hosted at the ALP site.

Mr Beazley and His Plebiscites

• By Professor David Flint. Paper presented to the Samuel Griffith Society in August/September 2001. At their website. Objects to the Beazley plan.
• "This is a plan to circumvent the Constitution by the use of cascading constitutional plebiscites, which are designed to soften the people up before a final referendum. This is constitutional change by stealth and by fatigue."

Planning For A New Republic

By Kim Beazley. Speech to the Australian Association For Constitutional Law, Notre Dame University, Fremantle, WA, 7 October 2000. Sketches his plans for achieving a republic. At the Australian Republican Movement site.

Where to now for the Republic?

By Kim Beazley. The Federal Leader's Report in the December 1999 edition of the Labor Herald. Part-partisan retrospective, part-outline of the ALP plans. ("The referendum 'No' result made it clear that Australians simply will not accept a proposal for Constitutional change which they perceive as being imposed from on high.")

Articles &c

The Corowa Peoples Conference 2001: Applying the lessons of 1893, 1895 and 1999 to resolve the Australian head of state issue

By Richard McGarvie. Paper presented to a seminar at the School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash University, 29 March 2001. At the author's website.

The Corowa Peoples Conference 2001: Restarting Another Stalled Move

By Richard McGarvie and Jack Hammond QC. Paper placed before the Mayor of the Corowa Shire Council and members of the Corowa Federation Centenary 2001 Committee on 16 and 17 December 2001. At the website for Richard McGarvie.

An Australian Head of State: The final step from colony to nation state

By Jack Hammond QC. Article published in Overlander magazine June 2001. At the website for Richard McGarvie.

The Head of State

By Jack Hammond QC. Letter published in Quadrant, April 2001. A response to an editorial published in the March 2001 issue criticising the holding of the Corowa Peoples Conference. At the website for Richard McGarvie.

Long Road to Republic

Editorial in the Canberra Times, 4 December 2001 on the Corowa conference of 2001. At the website for ARM's ACT branch.

The People's Conference at Corowa: 1 & 2 December 2001

By Anne Barber. At the Women's Electoral Lobby (WEL) Australia site. From Inkwel, January 2002. An overview of the conference.

A Practical Way to Early Resolution of the Head of State Issue

• By Richard E. McGarvie. Published in the Victorian Bar News, vol 117, 2001. At the author's website. Looks at, amongst other things, the origins of the 2001 conference.
• "Richard McGarvie previews the Conference to be hosted by the Corowa Shire Council on 1 and 2 December 2001, as the endpiece of the federation year. The conference aims to perform the same function as the Corowa Conference of 1893, which recommended the process that was followed to resolve the issue of whether Australia should federate."

The Republic: Report from Corowa

By Professor David Flint. Paper presented to the Samuel Griffith Society in June 2002.

Talks breathe new life into an old dream

• By John Warhurst. Published in the Canberra Times, 7 December 2001. At the website for ARM's ACT branch. An account of the conference.
• "McGarvie wanted much greater involvement for state parliaments and for the Council of Australian Governments, and, initially, proposed that unanimity (rather than the usual referendum double majority) should be required before a republic was adopted. Craven, arguing that the Royal Hotel proposal was "programmed" to produce a direct-election model, did not want a plebiscite to choose between republic models but only on the in-principle question of a republic. The vote, conducted by the Victorian Electoral Commission, was by preferential voting between three proposals."

Conference Proposals

Draft Proposals

The five final proposals (in Microsoft Word and PDF formats). Stored at an archived copy of the site maintained by the National Library of Australia.

Conference Speeches

Professor David Flint

Delivered 1 December 2001. Stored at the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site.

Information

Background

The origin of, and other information about, the 1893 Conference. "Brought to you by the Corowa Historical Society". Stored at an archived copy of the site maintained by the National Library of Australia.

Websites

The Corowa People's Conference

The official website of the 2001 conference. (Now archived by the NLA's Pandora service.)

A Republic in Waiting?

• By Tom Dusevic. An article in Time, 15/11/1999. At Online Opinion's Australian Constitutional Reform site.
• "Those people with a tertiary education and higher incomes, living in the inner-ring of suburbs in the capital cities, returned a very strong yes vote to the main proposal for Constitutional change. People from the bush, and low-income 'battlers' living on the urban fringe, who overwhelmingly voted no, were thought by many to be exercising a protest vote against elite opinion and tossing out a proposal they didn't trust or understand. 'It's an up-you-Jack mentality,' said the Australian Labor Party's Daryl Melham, who represents Banks, a working-class seat in south-western Sydney that returned a no vote in line with the national average. 'These people felt taken for granted.'"

Republic: What the world is saying (missing)

Published in the The Age on 8/11/1999. Extracts (with links to the full articles) from six online newspapers: two Canadian, one American, and three British.

Australian Constitutional Referendum Study 1999

Australian Constitutional Referendum Study 1999

At the Australian Social Science Data Archive of the ANU. User's guide and other materials. ("The 1999 Australian Constitutional Referendum Study was conducted to investigate the Australian electorate's attitudes towards the significant political issues surrounding the 1999 constitutional referendum.")

What the People Want, What They Really Really Want--To Elect a President Themselves

By John Pyke. "An analysis of the Australian Constitutional Referendum Study". At his website.

Newspoll

Attitudes to a Republic (134K) (PDF)

By Sol Lebovic. Looks like a powerpoint presentation. Mostly graphs. Presented to the Australian Constitutional Futures 2002 conference.

Opinion Polls

• 6/8/2001: In the Australian (PDF)
  Asked whether in favour or against.
• 15/11/2002: In the Australian (PDF)
  Questions asked included whether in favour or against,and the method preferred for choosing president.

Roy Morgan (RM's Old Website)

Most Australians Still Support Republic With Elected President

Poll #3264. Face-to-face interviews, Australia-wide, 934 registered electors (out of a total of 1101 Australians aged 14 and over) on the weekend of November 20/21, 1999. ("Of 934 registered electors surveyed Australia-wide, 54% said Australia should become a republic with an elected President, while 39% said Australia should remain a monarchy and 7% were undecided. ... Significantly, support among electors for a republic with an elected president outstrips support for the monarchy in every state, including Queensland, which most strongly rejected the referendum.")

Republic No "Lay Down Misere" As Queen Wins Australian Hearts

Poll #3296. Face-to-face interviews, Australia-wide, 1548 registered electors on the weekends of March 24/25 and April 1/2, 2000 (during the Royal visit). The question asked ("In your opinion, should Australia remain a MONARCHY--or become a REPUBLIC with an elected President?") showed a "substantial fall in support for an Australian Republic with an elected President among Australian electors.")

Pamela Bone

OK, so I voted yes: an elitist confesses (missing)

• Published in the The Age on 8/11/1999.
• "Nearly all movements of social reform have been driven by the educated middle-classes--the kind of people now derided as elitist. The paradox is that it is usually the educated middle-class who are more imbued with notions of justice and equality than any other group."

Alan Kennington

Australian 'republic' referendum: Why I voted NO

• Eight reasons listed. At his website.
• "The referendum has nothing to do with making Australia a republic. Australia is already a republic. If the referendum had been successful, it would simply have increased the power of the parliament over the Governor-General, which would effectively have transferred extra power to the Parliament. ... The so-called pro-republicans sought independence in the same way that teenagers try to demonstrate their adulthood by mis-behaving, smoking, staying out late at night, and threatening to leave home. When people reach true adulthood, they are not afraid to associate with their parents."

"Ryth"

The Australian "Republic": Why I voted NO on 7/11/99

At the author's website.

[The] 1999 Referendum

Author unknown. Very brief reflections by the Australian Republican Movement, much of them culled from Michael Lavarch's article The Way Forward. At their site.

After the Referendum: Where to Now?

• By Ken Handley. Stored at the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site.
• "Supporters of existing constitutional arrangements who sought to engage in serious debate were often ignored, ridiculed, or marginalised. The occasional extreme statement was given enormous publicity, but attempts at serious debate were denigrated as a scare campaign. Supporters of our existing constitutional arrangements were described as the 'blue rinse' set, yesterday's men or women, backward-looking, unpatriotic, small-minded and so on. Australians were encouraged to discard a so-called cultural cringe to Britain but at the same time to adopt a cultural cringe to Asia because its leaders can't understand our Constitution."

Another vote against the politics of exclusion (missing)

• By Andrew Robb. Published in the The Age on 8/11/1999.
• "I'm certain that the message in the no vote was not 'keep the Queen', nor was it 'give me a directly elected president'. Rather, it was a blunt 'don't rush me, don't take me for granted' message. ... We need to accept the decision of the people, and acknowledge their message that they want to be given some time, some ownership."

Australia After the Referendum--I (missing)

• By Tony Parkinson. Published in the The Age on 13/11/1999. Saskatchewan, the republic, and the rural backlash.
• "Some of the more bitter republican campaigners see their defeat as symptomatic of a cultural schism in Australian society: a well-educated, well-to-do, forward-looking middle class in the big cities embraced the yes vote, while an oafish and dim-witted hillbilly proletariat in the hinterlands and urban fringes was duped by monarchists into destroying the republican dream. Self-evidently, this is bunkum. All six states voted down the republic. So did 55 per cent of the electorate."

Australia After the Referendum--II (missing)

• By Andrew Clark. Published in the The Age on 13/11/1999. Rugby, the French, and the aftermath of the republic referendum.
• "On the republican side, there are new moves to find a compromise between those favoring direct election of a president and those pushing for parliamentary selection, with some public consultation. One possible outcome is the six state parliaments and the federal parliament selecting a list of candidates through a process of public consultation. These candidates may be narrowed down to, say, five, and then presented to the voters for decision, with a (hopefully) short campaign."

Australian Journal of Political Science: Commentary

• By Helen Irving, March 2000. Looks at the fate of both referendum questions. Also considers a range of issues re the republic proposal in particular. For example, the changes it would have made to s117. At the Australian Republican Movement site.
• "Majorities in every state rejected both questions, as had happened nine times before in referendums. The national count of just over 45% in favour put the republic question in among the lowest third of all referendum results. The national vote for the Preamble, at just over 42% was the tenth worst, out of 44 questions this century."
• "The 1998 Convention did little to address the range of alterations needed, with its ten days'duration (by far the shortest of any of the review processes) devoted principally to debating the means of choosing a republican head of state. Ironically, this matter need not depend on constitutional alteration. It would be quite possible constitutionally to have a parliamentary choice, even a direct popular election, for the Governor-General, leaving the Constitution undisturbed, with the name of the chosen candidate going forth as the Prime Minister's nominee to the Queen, under the current practice applied to section 2."

Australian Republic Referendum: The beginning not the end of the story (missing)

• By Wayne Hall. Article in the These Tides magazine.
• "The result of the Nov[ember] 6th [1999] republic referendum in Australia is a clear victory for the intelligence and egalitarianism of the people of Australia in the face of years of taxpayer-funded subversion of the country's constitution by media-supported 'globalists' in nationalist garb."

The Australian Republic Referendum 1999: Ten Lessons

By Justice Michael Kirby. Address to Faculty of Law, University of Buckingham, UK. 3 March 2000. At his website at the Law & Justice Foundation of NSW.

Australian republic: so what?

• By Brian Martin. Published in Freedom 11/12/1999. Also a version appeared in Broad Left, December 1999. At the author's website.
• "The most worrying aspect of this whole affair is how worked up people got over something that changes so little. The proposed president was to have the same powers as the governor-general: virtually none. In other words, changing to a republic means exchanging one figurehead for another."

Biased Press Blots its Copy

• By Tony Abbott. At his website. Article in The Australian, 11/11/1999.
• "The key difference between the republic referendum and every other political campaign was the way the media openly and consistently barracked for one side. For this poll, the traditional 'fourth estate' of government was stacked with republican deputies. A couple of weeks before the referendum, I challenged a group of senior Canberra press gallery journalists to name a single colleague who was a declared no voter. Eventually they nominated David Barnett, the distinguished biographer of the Prime Minister, whose special brand of no-nonsense conservative copy is no longer carried by any metropolitan daily."
• "At least The Australian was openly partisan (to the extent of offering readers free 'Vote Yes' bumper stickers). To its credit, the News Limited flagship took pains to give 'the other side' a run, hosting a series of innovative and carefully balanced town hall meetings around the country. But too often 'balance' was achieved by matching one no case op-ed piece with three spruiking for the other side."

Blame the president for saving the Queen (missing)

• By Jenny Hocking. Published in the The Age on 10/11/1999.
• "That voters were beguiled, that they were unaided by an appropriate (and promised) information campaign, that they were confused by competing claims that generated only uncertainty, are all beyond doubt."
• "A minimalist position could have retained the term governor-general for a republican head of state, while removing all references to the Crown. By retaining the title governor-general, the continuities in the nature and powers of the office would have been beyond dispute. Such a position would not only have given appropriate recognition to our political evolution from a constitutional monarchy--but, more importantly in the context of this referendum, would also have ensured that the symbolic resonances of 'president' did not overwhelm consideration of the fundamental issues, as indeed they did."

By the People, For the People (missing)

• By Major-General W.B. "Digger" James. Touches only now and again on the republic issue. Address to the A.C.M National Conference, All Saints Church Hall, Brisbane, 6 October, 2001. Stored at the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site. (The speech title is taken from a table of contents page.)
• "In the same article Michael Duffy refers to the late US socialist Christopher Lasch in his book 'The revolt of the elites'. His thesis was that 'Well paid people in the legal, knowledge and communication industries now have more in common culturally and commercially with people like themselves in other countries than with other people in their own nations.' ... As I read these articles and hear these statements my mind swings back to the referendum in which we all participated in November 1999...."

A Centenary Reflection on the Australian Constitution: The Republic Referendum, 1999

By Justice Michael Kirby. Address to R G Menzies Memorial Lecture delivered at King's College, London, 4 July 2000. At the High Court's website.

The class act that split the city and the State (missing)

• By Padraic McGuinness. Dated 8 November 1999. At the Sydney Morning Herald's site. "Bully republicans" and other rumblings.
• "Let's face it. The bully republicans and those in the media who pander to them have made fools of themselves. Ever since Saturday night they have been thinking of all kinds of reasons why they couldn't persuade more than half the electorate to agree with them. The emerging consensus seems to be that the people were just too stupid and uneducated to understand the fantastic opportunity offered them. Now the knives are being sharpened for revenge."

A Comment on the Referendum Result (missing)

Author unknown. A brief comment on the referendum results. A further comment (even briefer) is here. ("Since the people have rejected the 'minimalist' disaster, how many will dare to make another attempt to misappropriate the Republic by refusing the people the opportunity to choose as they wish? Probably very few, if any!!")

A common sense model of a nation (missing)

• By David Malouf. Published in the The Age on 11/11/1999. Commonwealths, res publica, and missed chances.
• "Most electors remained indifferent to the slogan "an Australian for head of state". They didn't disagree. They just didn't think it was the most important question to be asked. They resented being told they were colonial. They didn't feel colonial; even the word seemed academic and remote. And they didn't feel, either, that they were living in a place that had still to come of age."

Cycles, Strategic Votes and Manipulation in the 1999 Republic Referendum (RTF)

By Nicole Mitchell. Academic paper. Presented to the Year 2000 Conference of the Australasian Political Studies Association (APSA). At the APSA2000 website. "This paper does not explicitly focus on the discussion of causes of the referendum's failure. The paper does, however, formalise questions and intuitions that had a presence in the debate."

Daughters of Federation, Mothers of the Republic

By Susan Ryan. Deakin University Public Lecture: Women in Leadership, 21 June 2000. In amongst the reflections on Federation & 1972 are some on the way women voted at the 1999 referendum & other views on the republic issue. At the Australian Republican Movement site. ("Fewer women voted 'yes' than men. If women had supported the 'yes' case as strongly as men, it may have got up.")

Defeat for Australian republic referendum highlights social divide

• By Mike Head. 9 November 1999. At the World Socialist Web Site, "[p]ublished by the International Committee of the Fourth International".
• "As one embittered newspaper editorial put it, the 'cream of society'--the politicans, the celebrities, the academics and the business executives--backed the officially-endorsed republican model, only to have it rejected by the rest of society."
• "Electoral maps depicting the results show islands of 'yes' voters around the corporate and financial headquarters of Sydney, Melbourne and other state capitals, encircled by a sea of 'no' voters stretching from the industrial suburbs into the remote heart of the continent."
• "Others demanded 'more simple messages' that could be 'more understood'. The prevailing attitude in these circles was that the 'battlers' who rejected the republic were ignorant, ill-informed and lacking in intelligence. ... Their comments echo those of [the 19th] century, when the ruling elite of the day strenuously objected to universal suffrage on the ground that the common people, and women especially, were too ill-educated to be trusted with a vote."

Did Australians Back the Queen?

• Author unknown. At the homepage of UK's Socialist Worker newspaper.
• "Right wing forces celebrated last weekend as they heard the result of the Australian referendum on whether the queen should remain the country's head of state. Australian voters narrowly rejected a proposal to establish a republic, headed by a president, by 54 to 46 percent."

Forecast: reign for many years (missing)

• By David Williamson. Dated 9 November 1999. At the Sydney Morning Herald's site. Bitter reflections from a "yes" voter.
• "Maybe, one hopes, sanity will prevail from here on in: the Beazley plebiscite to decide between republic or monarchy as a first step, then a thoroughgoing debate on the model. This is the two-step process that Beazley claims should have been instigated from the start. At least this way [Kerry] Jones would have to come out in the open and declare for Queen, corgis, cucumber sandwiches, and young Willy riding after the foxes, and all those deeply and embarrassingly anachronistic things which she and her followers love. And Ted Mack would have to put up or shut up and produce a model that would satisfy a majority of Australians."

The Forgotten High-Rise Republicans (missing)

• By Geoff Strong. Published in the The Age on 13/11/1999.
• "...it is easy to glance at the federal seat of Melbourne and explain why, at 71.35 per cent, it recorded the strongest affirmative vote in Australia. Analysts pointed to the inner-urban gentry, the chardonnay socialists, the university educated. It's true, they are all there. But look closer and this analysis has gaps; the theorists failed to consider another demographic group with its own reasons for supporting a republic."

Getting back to business (missing)

• By Gerard Henderson. Dated 9 November 1999. At the Sydney Morning Herald's site. The executive director of the Sydney Institute on the likely fate of the republic issue in both major political parties, at least until after the 2001 general election.
• "In the lead-up to Saturday's poll, Reith commented that senior Liberals who wanted to shut down the republican debate in response to a 'no' outcome were kidding themselves. Events are likely to prove that it is the Minister for Workplace Relations who is into self-delusion. For whatever reason or reasons, the electorate voted 'no' on Saturday. In view of this it makes sense for Liberals, monarchists and republicans alike, to drop the issue."

The Great Divide (missing)

• By Tony Stephens. Dated 13 November 1999. At the Sydney Morning Herald's site. The class factor, the republic issue, and an attempt at de-mythifying. Note: the 84% figure quoted at one point in this article would appear to include not only women and Aborigines but also babes-in-arms and foreign nationals resident in Australia.
• "[Opinion pollster Rod] Cameron says, 'In the city this class thing is very much related to the growing income distribution gulf. More affluent people travel more and are therefore interested more in things like the reputation of Australia overseas and the symbolism. The others couldn't give a stuff about the issues. To them symbolism, and what people overseas think, is totally irrelevant.'"

Howard plays down fallout from republic referendum

Kerry O'Brien interviews John Howard on the ABC's 7:30 Report the Monday after the referendum (8 November 1999).

The Inner Metropolitan Republic

• By Malcolm Mackerras. Paper presented to the Samuel Griffith Society in November 2000. At their website. An look at the statistics of the 1999 referendum results.
• "It is often asked why the Australian Capital Territory was the only jurisdiction to record an affirmative vote. ... The three main characteristics are those of residence, socio-economic status and party. The republic was always a Labor cause, and the ACT is the most strongly Labor of the eight jurisdictions. The referendum result, however, was one in which the 'Yes' vote was essentially an inner metropolitan phenomenon with a link to high socio-economic status. As the most Labor, most inner metropolitan, jurisdiction, with high indexes of relative socio-economic advantage, the referendum vote in the ACT should cause no surprise."

Interview: Let Sleeping Dogs Lie

• Interview with Jason Yat-Sen Li by Peter Lewis. At the Workers Online site.
• "We need to think about direct election. I mean, direct election is difficult and it's always been my view that it's a radical change--it's a very big change for our system of government. Now, that may well be a good thing but it will be difficult to pass at a referendum, simplybecause it is a radical change and the scare mongering of the No Campaign to accompany that will be even bigger than the scare campaign this time round."

Letter to the Workers Online: Republic Post Mortem

• By Laurie Guthridge and David Peetz. At the Workers Online site.
• Two letters to the editor. One by a disgruntled reader with an unique view of the Constitution ("Does not the Queen generally follow the idea and the instruction of the Governor-General? I'm going to send a number of emails to [Opposition Leader] Kim Beazley to direct Billy Deane to direct the Head-of-state to dismiss the Prime Minister because that's what the people want. Bitter, bitter, bitter. Let's put this unchanged constitution to the test and make the people of Australia realise the opportunity they have missed. "), the other by an optimist ("Public support for direct election of a president is fundamentally soft, as shown by the deliberative poll.") who has a plan to trump "the Hansonite tactics of the monarchists".

Making Sense of the Referendum (97K)

By John Uhr. Note: there is a transcript of a question & answer session at the end of the main text. One of the Papers on Parliament series at the Senate's website presented as a lecture in the Department of the Senate Occasional Lecture Series at Parliament House, 22 October 1999.

Monarchists should beware of believing their own myths

• By Greg Barns. Originally an article in The Australian, 23 March 2000. Devoted mostly to rebutting comments by Justice Michael Kirby at a Menzies' Lecture the latter gave. At the Australian Republican Movement site.
• "Kirby might be a distinguished High Court judge but if his Menzies Lecture on the republic referendum is any indication, he is no political commentator. Kirby, like most people associated with the monarchist campaign, continues to attack the republicans for failing to convince the Australian people to set aside their deeply ingrained caution in large constitutional changes. What Kirby refuses to acknowledge is that it was lies and deception, coupled with a grossly inadequate public education campaign, that sank Australia's opportunity to enter the centenary of Federation with our own head of state."

Not the vote of a clever country (missing)

• By Greg Barns, campaign director for the ARM. Dated 12 November 1999. At the Sydney Morning Herald's site.
• "...one of the biggest problems for republicans in the referendum campaign was Australians' lack of basic knowledge about our civic institutions, making it very easy for the monarchists to run a misleading campaign."

Now for our crisis of confidence (missing)

• By Paul Keating. Published in the The Age on 8/11/1999. A former prime minister pins the blame for the referendum loss.
• "Thanks to John Howard's wilful and manipulative management of the issue and the innate reactionary nature of his political philosophy, the pressure will grow to give Australia an elected presidency in the future, a position that would enjoy the full reserve powers of an English monarch. Such a development would change forever the political primacy of the Parliament, prime minister and Cabinet in our political system. This result has been delivered by a campaign of lies, an alliance of convenience with naive or self-serving republicans, and the active support of John Howard, who manipulated the referendum to ensure its defeat."

The people chose both Queen and country (missing)

• By Tony Abbott. Published in the The Age on 8/11/1999.
• "Because large swathes of the media are in denial about what really happened on Saturday, let's make it very clear. The no campaign won despite the opposition of the Labor Party, virtually every media outlet and much of the Liberal Party. This is a credit to the healthy scepticism of the Australian people who refused to be told what to do and rejected the dud model republic."

Perfectly plausible system sunk by fear of unfamiliar (missing)

• By Bob Carr. Dated 8 November 1999. At the Sydney Morning Herald's site. A staunch opponent of direct election tells of the republic campaign that-might have-been had he only been able to persuade other delegates at the 1998 Convention.
• "Choosing the name governor-general for Australia's republican head of state would have eliminated the need to change at least 21 sections of the Constitution. The essential remaining changes would have involved removing references to the Queen and royal assent. This approach would have avoided distraction about republican models and methods of appointment. The republicans could have argued that all we propose is the lopping out of constitutional references to the monarch. But, beyond that, things go on as before."

Rape of the Australian Republic

• By Ian C. Purdie. Reflections tinged with the disappointment and bitterness of defeat, together with several postscripted comments from various correspondents. At his own website.
• "Had the direct election advocates gracefully accepted the majority vote of the constitutional convention, supported the YES campaign unconditionally, then Australia would today be on the road to becoming a republic. It is their failure and intransigence alone which I think will in time cause voters a great deal of angst, when they finally reflect on the consequences of having cast their NO vote. The only real opposition to our republic would have been the monarchists who could never successfully articulate their case."

  Response to the above

  By Graham Paterson. At the same website.

The Referendum Debate: A Note on Press Coverage

• By Dr Nancy Stone. Paper presented to the Samuel Griffith Society in November 2000. At their website. Presents the results of a survey of press coverage of the 1999 referendum, complete with tables and charts.
• "The 'quality' press played a large part in the debate preceding the republic referendum of 6 November, 1999. The Victorian group promoting the 'No Republic' case asked me to examine every copy of The Age (and The Sunday Age) and The Australian during the 12-13 weeks to voting day, to enable some assessment of the manner in which those newspapers handled this important public debate."

Referendum vote rejects republic model, reflects deepening divisions in Australia

• By Ron Poulsen & Bob Aiken. 29 November 1999. At the website for The Militant, a "socialist newspaper".
• "Reflecting widespread capitalist support for a moderate republican shift, the editorial opinion of the major dailies across the country was solidly for a yes vote. The West Australian was [one] of the few that called for a no vote, but did so in favor of a directly elected president, while the Australian Financial Review criticized the referendum proposal as a 'sham'."

Referendum voting and support for an Australian republic (RTF)

• By Bruce Tranter. Academic paper. Presented to the Year 2000 Conference of the Australasian Political Studies Association (APSA). At the APSA2000 website. Note: the tables and figures mentioned in the text are at the end of the paper.
• "Those with low education and/or little interest in, or knowledge of politics--perhaps lacking the motivation to engage with republican issues--are least likely to explore the implications of a direct versus Parliament elected Head of State. On the other hand, intellectuals are highly likely to engage in political discussion and are inclined to be politically active. They have the cognitive skills necessary to understand complex political issues.... Is it surprising then, that members of an 'intellectual' status category find a president elected by parliament more attractive? Alternatively, if Betts...is correct and 'cosmopolitan' intellectuals see 'parochial' Australians as politically and culturally unsophisticated, they may simply not trust voters to choose the nation's figurehead."
• "Perhaps the republic referendum failed, as Higley and Case...argue, due to public mistrust of politicians and the absence of bipartisan support. As the analyses above show, the former was a predictor of voting at the referendum, although not a particularly strong predictor, while the latter certainly hindered the Yes vote. However, the republic was also lost because voters have very limited knowledge of the Constitution. The proposed republican model attracted allegations of elitism, but the popular alternative--a directly elected president--would surely see the political elite retain and possibly even enhance the scope of their influence."

The Referendum We Had to Have

• By Paul Norton. April 2000. At the Workers Online site.
• "If the conservative republicans and their co-thinkers in the business community had any impact whatsoever on the outcome, it would most likely have been to confirm suspicions that the minimalist republic was all a plot by the elites and the 'top end of town'. In a way, of course, that is exactly what it was. Australia's political, business, bureaucratic and media elites have, over the past twenty years, turned politics into the art of insulating public policy making from scrutiny, substantive debate and democratic control by the public on whose behalf the policy is made. A necessary aspect of this is opposition to any proposals for constitutional change which could substantially democratise our political system."

Referendum With Class

• By Michael Thompson. 17 December 1999. At the Workers Online site.
• "There were those among the ARM, such as David Williamson, who, 'in good faith, pushed a minimalist model because [he] believed it was the only one that had any hope of a "yes" vote'. Labor leaders like Bob Carr were genuinely concerned about the president's powers under a directly elected model. But one suspects there were other, unstated, reasons for the haste. For instance, with 'virtually every media outlet advocating a Yes vote' (as Garry Morgan said in The Bulletin), they may have thought aggressive marketing would get them over the line. Or maybe they simply did not trust ordinary Australians to vote for the president?"

The Republican Campaign in Australia: Past, Present, and Future

• By John Warhurst. Paper for an APSA conference, University of Tasmania, 1 October 2003. Partly a look at the outcome of the 1999 referendum and partly a look at what has happened since. At the ARM website. (Another (PDF) copy is available here at the University of Tasmania.) Note that the subtitle is missing from the ARM version.
• What seems to be yet another copy can be found here at the ACT branch of the ARM, only with a different title ("The republic issue: where is it now and what is its future?") and different date (in mid-April 2003).
• "The word 'inevitable' should be cast out of the lexicon of all republicans. It is like a kiss of death."

The Republic is back on the Agenda

By James Terrie. Originally an article in The Australian, 23 March 2000. At the Australian Republican Movement site.

Republic Referendum Fails

Author not given, but stated to be from chapter 20 of Your Rights 2000. Stored at the Australian Civil Liberties Union website.

Soon we'll have the republic we want

• By Phil Cleary. Published in the The Age on 8/11/1999. The above link goes to an Irish website. An abridged version of the same article, along with a second article by Cleary on the republic issue ("Yes and More? You must be joking, Moira"), can be found here on Cleary's own website.
• "Two days ago we were told that a no vote would see the end of the republic. Now Kim Beazley tells us that the no vote actually means yes to the republic, and that a republic with an elected president will be part of the ALP's political agenda in the lead-up to the next election. How amusing, given that when direct electionists outlined this scenario in the weeks before the referendum they were lampooned as quisling monarchists and spoilers."

Time's Up for the Turnbull Republic

• By Lindsay Tanner. Published in the The Age on 17/9/2002. An edited version of a "grievance speech" to the House of Representatives. The "celebrity-driven" ARM (and the "fabulously wealthy" Malcolm Turnbull) come in for a caning.
• "Since the referendum defeat the ARM has lost its way completely. A new executive full of usual suspects has had minimal impact, and a ridiculous attempt to get state premiers to introduce republican governors has fizzled. And predictably enough, direct-election republicans who advocated a No vote, led by professional curmudgeon Phil Cleary, have disappeared."
• Comments & Responses

  The Republic and Revival

  • By Ray Cassin. Published in the The Age on 22/9/2002.
  • "John Howard...must have had difficulty restraining his glee at the fact that the ARM, under Turnbull's tutelage, was insistent on a republic model that treated popular participation in the political process with disdain. Dissident republican voices like Phil Cleary were vilified, and, as Tanner demonstrated in parliament last week, some of the vilifiers have still not grasped what really went wrong in 1999."
  • "The republic that mainstream politicians are afraid to talk about is more necessary now than ever. It cannot be a republic only in the sense of having an Australian as head of state nor only in the sense that the people choose the head of state, though it must be at least these things. It must have appropriate checks on the abuse of power, and restore the balance between the legislative and executive branches of government, which the evolution of the cabinet system has tilted too far in favour of the executive. And its constitutional arrangements must not focus narrowly on the relationship between the Commonwealth and the states, as our 1901 constitution does. They should begin with what is left out of the present constitution, a declaration of the rights and responsibilities of citizens."

  Spades of Retrospective Courage

  • By Phil Cleary. At his own website.
  • "At some point he must accept that direct electionists opposed the ARM model because they honestly believed it was the antithesis of republicanism. If all Lindsay Tanner wants to do is blame everyone else, there'll be no reconciliation."

  To Dream the Impossible Dream

  • By Shaun Carney. Published in the The Age on 21/9/2002.
  • "Monarchists and republicans possess a different sensibility. The republican argument is generally coolly delivered, especially by those of the minimalist persuasion, while constitutional monarchists are often more passionate and fired by indignation. This is not good for republicans. The sad truth is that when it comes to the argument for change, the fire has never been there, at least not in the wider community."

To Preserve, To Protect and To Defend the Constitution

• By Professor David Flint. Address to the ACM on the occasion of the First Neville Bonner Oration, Parliament House, Sydney, 6 November, 2000. Stored at the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site. (The speech title is taken from a table of contents page.)
• Note: the "Simultaneous Elections" proposal has arguably been put to referendum four times, albeit on the last occasion (1988) it was in a substantially modified form: viz. folded in with the parliamentary terms proposal.
• "Only one speech at the Constitutional Convention in 1998 received a standing ovation. It was given by the late the Honourable Neville Bonner, AO. In many ways it was his farewell to the nation. What was Neville Bonner's theme? It was a call to the nation to preserve, to protect and to defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia."
• "It is even said we still live under a 'horse and buggy' constitution. In other words because it is old and successful it must be changed. The American Constitution is twice as old, yet I cannot recall it described a 'horse and buggy' constitution!"

The Referendum: A Post-Mortem

• By Sir David Smith. Paper presented to the Samuel Griffith Society in November 2000. At their website. A member of the "No" committee gives not so much a post-mortem as an insider's perspective (from the "No" side) of the 1999 referendum campaign.
• "[T]he Government's insistence on retaining the reference to the method of appointment of the President by the Parliament--a most significant element of the proposed constitutional alteration, one would have thought--was vigorously opposed by the republicans, not because it was inaccurate, for it was not, but because, as Andrew Robb had put it, it might provoke a negative reaction from voters!"
• For the curious, the element of humour which begins this article can also be found, extracted via a different source, here. See Item #32. Items 17 & 19 may have also come from the same court case.

The tyranny of ignorance rules (missing)

• By Janet McCalman. Published in the The Age on 10/11/1999. Barry Jones, the republic issue, and the importance of "book facts".
• "It's easy to scoff at populists, but those sophisticated direct electionists who colluded in telling the Australian people that the ARM model was a 'politicians' republic', as though direct election of charismatic figures backed by the electoral machines of political parties would not be, have betrayed democracy. Neither side in the republic debate should feel proud of the cheap, crude, deceptive sloganeering that the spin doctors persuaded them to endorse. The more we devalue 'book facts'--evidence, logical processes, careful thought and considered judgment--the more we expose ourselves to the dangers of manipulation by unpleasant groups of people."

Underdeveloped Nationalism or Populist Protest? Why the Republic Referendum was defeated (RTF)

• By David Charnock. Academic paper. Presented to the Year 2000 Conference of the Australasian Political Studies Association (APSA). At the APSA2000 website. Note: the tables mentioned in the text are at the end of the paper. Draws on "survey data from the Australian Constitutional Referendum Study 1999...to examine the factors underlying the defeat of the Republic proposal."
• "Drawing on a typology developed by Jones...that divides the population into four groups, I was able to show that the association between the referendum vote and these identity groups was fairly strong, being not much weaker than that between the vote and party identification. The nature of the association was that those groups that were strongly nativist were considerably more likely to vote 'No' than were the others. This suggests a protest vote, because prima facie one would have expected strong nativists to be most in support of having an Australian as head of state."

The Views of the "Yes and More" Coalition (missing)

A press statement by the Yes and More Coalition and an article my Moira Rayner. Stored at their website. ("Of course, we accept the electors' decision, whatever the cause - fear of change, bloody-mindedness, rejection of the process, or a desire for more than what was on offer. It was clearly not a vote for the monarchy as such; but it has left a barrier to democratic reform, our inadequate Constitution, firmly in place. ... The people want a greater say in their own government. The republic issue has revealed our deep distrust of 'politicians' and resentment at being lectured and bullied: it has divided Australia, not just republicans. It is time to heal.")

Was the blokes' republic a turn-off for women? (missing)

• By Karen Kissane. Published in the The Age on 14/11/1999.
• "'The last two weeks of the campaign was almost entirely dominated on the republican side by the faces of men. I thought if I saw another face of a bloke over 50 I would scream. When the coup de grace was supposed to be Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam saying "It's time", I could just see women in the kitchen saying, "Yeah, it's time to get the bloody dinner"!'"

The Way Forward

By Michael Lavarch, February 2000. Reflections by a former Commonwealth Attorney-General. At the Australian Republican Movement site.

We Need Time to Reflect

By Tony Abbott. At his website. Article in Sydney Morning Herald, 8/11/1999.

When No Means No: The Failure of the Australian 1999 Republican Referendum and its Root in the Constitutional Convention of 1998 (PDF)

By Martyn Webb. Dated 2000. At the Institute of Governmental Studies website. A "working paper" of the IGS.

When no means yes (missing)

• By Deborah Snow. Dated 13 November 1999. At the Sydney Morning Herald's site.
• "All week the pundits have been combing through the entrails of last weekend's referendum result, trying to pin voters down like butterflies on a specimen tray. Depending on which camp the experts fell into, they either depicted the result as a victory for commonsense and the battler, or saw it as evidence of a shattering new divide between haves and have-nots, the educated and the ignorant. But in Melbourne one group of academic number-crunchers has come up with a third hypothesis: that the vote reflected a divide between those who embraced the 'social agenda' of the Keating years, and those who did not."

Where now for the republic?

• Extracts from a Brisbane Institute seminar (presided over, apparently, by David Solomon) in which Ted Mack & Clem Jones "justified their support of a 'no' vote on last year's republic referendum to some skeptical Australian Republican Movement members." With additional comments by Rod Kendall of the ARM. Edited by Phil Dickie. Dated: 21 March 2001. At the Brisbane Institute website. (Note: a full transcript of the seminar is available, but only to Brisbane Institute members.)
• Ted Mack: "I just think it was such a very bad republican campaign and that was probably because it was an elitist thing from the beginning. There was no real contact with the community. ... They even went further and actually tried to attack the whole idea of the right to vote saying you can't have the right to vote, you will elect a celebrity. Then they got a pack of celebrities to sort of say you can't have the right to vote because you will elect someone like us. It was bizarre."

The Wisdom of Hindsight: The 1999 Republican Referendum--Lessons for the Future

Author not stated but presumed to be Richard McGarvie. Opening Paper presented to the seminar of the Australian Association of Constitutional Law on Planning for a New Republic, Notre Dame University, Fremantle, 7 October 2000. At the website for Richard McGarvie.

"Yes Men" Learn The Hard Way: Republic Doomed Since February 1998 Constitution Convention

By Gary Morgan. An analysis using Roy Morgan's polls of the trend of public opinion. Also published in The Bulletin 9/11/1999. The verdicts:

1. "The result of the November 6 Referendum should surprise no one. ... The result was a foregone conclusion from the moment the model of a republic with a President elected by two-thirds majority of members of both Houses of Parliament was chosen by the Constitutional Convention in February, 1998 to be put to a referendum. ... The Bulletin-Morgan Poll showed that the 'Yes' case was in trouble from the very beginning of the campaign."
2. "'I now agree with my father that Australia will never be a republic until politicians agree [to] the people elect[ing] the President.'" (His father "who believed that Australia should be a republic based on the Federal system, said on numerous occasions before he died in 1985 the only republic model that would have any hope of succeeding in a referendum would be a republic with an elected President.") For the original press release this quote appeared in, see the Opinion Poll Analysis part of Issues & Analysis.

Arabic community campaign under fire (missing)

• By Stephanie Peatling. Dated 9 November 1999. At the Sydney Morning Herald's site. Reports of dirty tricks.
• "The Australian Republican Movement is crying foul after reports that Sydney's Arabic community was targeted by 'no' campaigners who claimed voting for a republic would lead to the dismantling of the welfare system."

The bush picks Queen and country (missing)

• By Steve Waldon. Published in the The Age on 13/11/1999. A journalist ventures out of the Big Smoke in search of country views on the republic issue.
• "[John] Forrest says country people are making a statement. 'Until we turn around the fortunes for these rural areas, the answer on a republic will always be the same.' Could he influence them? 'Give me a model I can support, and I'll think about it.'"

How the west was lost in Sydney (missing)

• By Linda Morris. Dated 9 November 1999. At the Sydney Morning Herald's site. Sydney's western suburbs and the republic issue.
• "'It was not a vote against the republic, it was a vote against the set-up,' Mr Peter Seaton, a boilermaker from Tregear. 'The no vote won on a technicality. John Howard can't claim a win on that, no way in the world. Had they let the people elect the president you would have seen a landslide.'"

Why the battlers of the bush saw it differently (missing)

• Author unknown. Published in the The Age on 9/11/1999. Various country people and city folk have their views aired on the republic issue.
• "Just on 72 per cent voted no in the country [areas of Victoria], while 71.5[%] voted yes in inner-city Melbourne. But reasons for the great divide are unclear. Some analysts believe that part of the answer lies in the country backlash against the Kennett Government--that the country was distrustful of powerful politicians. Others, such as the Australian Republican Movement, believe that more highly educated people, concentrated in city areas, were more inclined to vote yes."

Why the republic was bushwhacked (missing)

• By Andrew Stephenson. Dated 13 November 1999. At the Sydney Morning Herald's site. Yet another journalist ventures into the great outdoors to uncover why the Bush "bushwacked" the republic.
• "'I didn't vote against the republic but against the politicians. I think we should be a republic but we need something with less holes in it,' [Bruce] Hosie argues. 'Have a look what Sydney gets from their politicians and what we get up here. We get bugger all.' ... While the extent of the 'no' vote might indicate an extensive, organised campaign against the republic, consensus in Gwydir was achieved with a minimum of fuss. A public meeting in Gunnedah attracted fewer than 60 people and the vote was only an occasional subject of conversation."

Youth backs status quo (missing)

• By Stephanie Peatling. Dated 9 November 1999. At the Sydney Morning Herald's site. Brief comments by Julian Lesser and Jason Yat-Sen Li.
• "Law student Mr Julian Leeser said he could not believe it when the 'yes' campaign 'trotted out brontosaurus Gough (Whitlam) and tyrannosaurus Malcolm (Fraser) and the whole It's Time advertising campaign'."

Committee Documents

An Inquiry into an Australian Republic: Discussion Paper (PDF)

An Inquiry into an Australian Republic: Discussion Paper (MS Word)

34 pages.

How to make a submission to a Senate Committee inquiry (PDF)

An MS Word version is also available here.

Website

An Inquiry into an Australian Republic

Information about the inquiry, lodging submissions, etc.

Television Broadcasts

Transcript of the Prime Minister The Hon John Howard MP: Television Interview with Kerry O'Brien

An interview on ABC TV's 7:30 Report program about the republic & the preamble. 8/11/1999. On the Prime Minister's website.

After the referendum: What now?

• By Wayne Hall. Not an accessment but a suggestion for one way to proceed.
• "One does not have to support limitation of democracy to men of property to perceive the potential for harm in universalising the right to vote. ... The universal franchise secures the right to participate in politics but does nothing to satisfy the need for good government. ... An Australian President must head a movement that can provide what the monarchists say they, not the republicans, care about--good government. He or she must not--like the American President--head a party with a declared political programme. He/she must lead and embody a constitutional counter-proposal that can seek and gain a mandate."

Don't! You'll Just Encourage Them

By Julian Leeser. An overview of the Australian Constitutional Futures Conference 2002 and what was said therein. Paper presented to the Samuel Griffith Society in May 2003.

Federation's Lessons for Restarting the Stalled Move to Resolve the Republic Issue

By Richard McGarvie. Speech given in Melbourne on 29 August 2000. Also published as a book review. At the author's website.

How should a Republican model be selected? (missing)

Author unknown. As the title suggests, is a discussion of how a republic model might be selected for putting to referendum. ("I am inclined to think that Government support for separate public forums, hosted by groups wishing to put forward their particular Republican Models, would be preferable to the chaotic political confrontations involved in a Constitutional Convention.")

A New Path: Constitutional Change (PDF)

By Mark McKenna. Presented to the Australian Constitutional Futures 2002 conference. McKenna suggests a plebiscite, followed by fully elected constitutional convention in the style of the 1897 one (ie two sessions with an adjournment in between). Also includes a plea for Aboriginal reconciliation, and for Aboriginal people to be "restore[d]...as the original owners of this country deserving of special rights".

A New Path: What Kind of Process Should be Adopted to Achieve Constitutional Change? (PDF)

By Senator Andrew Bartlett. Presented to the Australian Constitutional Futures 2002 conference. Senator Bartlett announces his intention to initiate a parliamentary inquiry into a republic.

The next republican referendum: substantive and process changes for a preferred outcome (RTF)

• By David Lundberg. Presented to the Year 2000 Conference of the Australasian Political Studies Association (APSA). At the APSA2000 website. Argues that holding a "preferential referendum" first (rather than going straight to a "conventional referendum") is the best option for the "next republican referendum".
• "A process with one preferential choice referendum, allowing voters a choice between direct and indirect republican models and 'no change', would identify the outcome preferred by most Australians."
• "The outcome of the 6 November 1999 referendum at least demonstrated that the notion that an Australian republic is "inevitable" is a fantasy, because it requires change by referendum, which is not even likely. ... Australia may be an independent, democratic nation operating within the constitutional structures of a self-governing dominion in a defunct empire, but that will continue until the required referendum majority approves a specific alternative."

The Republic and a Labor Government

By James Terrie. Article in the June 2001 edition of the Labor Herald. How the ALP will succeed where the "Howard-driven process of '98 and '99" did not. ("The influences of Curtin, Whitlam and Keating, in particular, have had a profound effect on making the issue of the republic an integral part of Labor's vision for Australia.")

Resolving the Republic Issue after the 1999 Referendum

By Richard E. McGarvie. Written (for his website) July 2000, revised September 2000. Partly a postmortem of the referendum, but mostly looks at the title issue: what might be done post-1999.

Sir Harry Gibbs: 2001 Neville Bonner Oration

• By Sir Harry Gibbs. Address at the Annual Neville Bonner Oration on the occasion of the 2001 ACM National Conference, All Saints Church, Brisbane, 8 October, 2001. Stored at the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site. Partly discusses the then forthcoming Corowa conference but also the "head of state" issue and republicans and their models and arguments post-1999.
• "The republicans are driven by a belief that it is anomalous that we should have a sovereign who now resides in Great Britain, when our former close ties with that country have been weakened, and when Great Britain is now in law a foreign country. They do not appear to see a much greater anomaly in the fact that committees of the United Nations have power to decide questions that affect the government of Australia. If the fact that the monarch lives abroad is anomalous, that does not mean that it is unacceptable or undesirable."

Terror Australis

By James Terrie. December 2001. At the Workers Online site. After a swing at the "two biggest contributors to the 1999 defeat", the ARM's national director "asks where to now for the Republic?" Brief.

What comes now for the brokenhearted?

By Greg Barns. Article in The Australian, 6 November 2000. At the Australian Republican Movement site. A few tidbits on ways forward, amongst other matters.

The republic we lost may yet become a reality

• By Greg Craven. Article in The Australian, 10 October 2000. At the Australian Republican Movement site.
• "We need a proposal that is simple, safe and, above all, capable of attracting bipartisan support. Paradoxically, that probably leads us back to the convention model that lost last year. Loser that it was, it is hard to see a model that comes closer to meeting the criteria for success. What we need to do is look at that model closely, with a view to improving its saleability. Can the appointment process include a more popular element? Can the mechanism for the dismissal of the head of state be improved? Remember, the model managed about 45 per cent in the face of concerted prime ministerial opposition."