Republic agenda still on the table 25 years after rejection

Wednesday 6 November marked 25 years since voters rejected a referendum question seeking to alter the Constitution to establish an Australian republic. Chair of the Real Republic Australia, David Muir, reflects on the “Con Con” that doomed the Referendum.

AS A MEMBER of the Constitutional Convention elected on the ticket of former Lord Mayor of Brisbane, the late Clem Jones, I can still recall the excitement of engaging in debates over the future vision for our nation.

The importance of giving power, or sovereignty, to the people was a big driver for Clem in his advocacy for a directly elected head of state.

He said it was no coincidence that elected representatives in local government – the closest level of government to the people – were the most likely advocates among any level of government for direct election at the Convention.

But even at a state level, there was significant support for direct election of a head of state. Queensland’s Peter Beattie, Mike Rann from South Australia and Geoff Gallop from Western Australia – then all state Labor opposition leaders – were in our direct election “camp”.

November is time for Australian republican remembering

November is Australia’s season for remembering efforts to bring about an Australian republic.

The most resistance to the direct-election model came from political figures at the federal level — the level most remote from the people.

Former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam berated me in King’s Hall at Old Parliament House, the Convention venue, for advocating direct election of our head of state and for “leading Clem astray”, even going as far as calling me a “Svengali”. As if anyone could lead Clem astray!

Gough changed his view years later and wrote to Peter Beattie, by then Queensland Premier, saying that he had been wrong and acknowledged that the only way to get a republic up in a referendum was to offer direct election.

I remember the enormous engagement with fellow Australians who were watching the Con Con’s televised debates and filling our pigeonholes at Old Parliament House with their feedback each day.

Constitutional law lecturers around the country told of finding themselves giving lectures of great interest to their students. Constitutional law was not a “dry subject” anymore.

There were periods of elation and periods of despair at the Con Con.

There was elation on day seven of the Con Con when The Australian newspaper trumpeted the results of a Newspoll showing that respondents favoured a directly elected head of state. The poll – reflecting polls before and since – said voters would choose “no change” if they could not directly elect their head of state in a republic.

We hoped that this news would influence Con Con delegates to support direct election.

The despair followed when the Australian Republican Movement delegates would not budge on their opposition to direct election and Prime Minister John Howard accepted a recommended model for the foreshadowed referendum that did not offer direct election and did not even have majority support on the floor of the Con Con.

On day one of the Convention, Clem Jones had moved a motion to limit the essentially useless monarchy-versus-republic debate to three days, not the full ten, so time could be spent on deciding on a viable and acceptable model. But his motion was defeated.

In the end, the model that emerged – one in which the head of state would be appointed by a minimum two-thirds majority vote of MPs in the Federal Parliament – did not have majority support even among Con Con delegates.

The vote on the last day of the Convention was recorded as:

73 “yes” votes ;
57 “no”; and
22 delegates abstaining.

An Australian republic was doomed on the floor of the Con Con that day. The wrong model – one favoured by former PM Paul Keating who had initiated the republic debate – was quickly dubbed a “politicians’ republic” and was put to Australian voters at a 6 November 1999 Referendum in a “take it or leave it” manner.

Unsurprisingly, voters chose overwhelmingly to leave it.

Following the Con Con, Clem Jones, former North Sydney Mayor and Independent State and Federal MP Ted Mack, as well as former Independent Federal MP Phil Cleary, along with other direct electionists, copped criticism for serving on the official “No” case committee established as is customary in referendums.

Some alleged they were out to sabotage the chances of our nation becoming a republic, but the cold hard truth is that the issue was lost on the floor of the Con Con with the totally wrong model being taken forward to the people.

The slogan ‘Vote NO to the politicians’ republic’ was adopted by the “No” campaign and clearly resonated with the public.

On referendum day, Saturday 6 November 1999, the question asking voters if Australia should adopt the “politicians’ republic” model was lost. Only 45% of Australians voted “Yes”.

For a referendum question to be approved, Section 128 of the Australian Constitution requires a “double majority”.

It needs an absolute majority of all Australian voters including those in the A.C.T. and Northern Territory to vote “Yes”. It also demands that a majority of states – four of the six excluding the territories – vote “Yes”.

At the 1999 Referendum, not one state in Australia voted “Yes”. Only the A.C.T. recorded a “Yes” vote.

The late Duke of Edinburgh reputably remarked after the result was announced: “What is wrong with these people? Can’t they see what’s good for them?”

The late Queen Elizabeth II is supposed to have responded: “It was all about the model.”

Ironically, the Queen was right.

This is an edited version of an article appearing in Constitutional Conversation, the quarterly newsletter of the Real Republic Australia.

David Muir is chair of the Real Republic Australia and was a Queensland delegate to the 1998 Constitutional Convention in Canberra elected as part of the team led by former Brisbane Lord Mayor, the late Clem Jones, advocating a directly elected head of state.