The Republican Referendum: Ten Years On
Ten years after the republican referendum, it is Australia's constitutional monarchists who have the most cause for celebration. And celebrating they are, with lunches in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth to mark what they call "Affirmation Day". Republicans, meanwhile, are gathering on the forecourt of Parliament House in Canberra, to remind their fellow Australians that it is time to mend the nation's heart - a reference to Malcolm Turnbull's anguished rebuke on the night of the referendum to the then Prime Minister, John Howard, whose support for the monarchy was one of the reasons why the referendum failed.
Certainly, these have been fallow years for Australian republicans, and remain so now, even though the prime minister is an avowed republican and the leader of the opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, used to head up the Australian Republican Movement.
I've just finished reading a book on the subject by the Melbourne academic Glenn Patmore, who, among other things, examines one of the great paradoxes of the 1999 debate: that 88% of Australians told pollsters that they supported an Australian head of state while only 45.1% voted for one at the referendum. In Choosing the Republic, Patmore points the finger at a number of suspects: a wily Prime Minister, John Howard, who knew that the constitutional convention which preceded the referendum would pit republican against republican; a referendum question framed exquisitely to exploit divisions within the republican movement between those who wanted en elected president and those who wanted an appointed president; a No campaign that gained traction by arguing the Australia would get a "Politician's Republic"; the lack of bipartisanship and the difficulty of winning a referendum without the active support of the prime minister of the day.
Add to that the "status quo" argument, voiced most forcefully by John Howard, who believed that the referendum failed "because of the inherent unwillingness on the part of Australians to change something that they haven't been persuaded was no longer working".
But perhaps the overarching argument of Choosing a Republic is that the movement has failed to produce an irresistible and animating vision of a monarch-free Australia. "It was as if the proposal for an Australian head of state was put to the people without any resonance with a philosophy of republicanism," Patmore writes of 1999.
We've spoken before in this blog about the Elizabeth factor: how the popularity of the present monarch presents problems for the republicans. When bold rhetoric is required, her continued presence is perhaps one of the reasons why politicians like Rudd and Turnbull are so timid on the question. Republicans would argue that the popularity of the Queen needs to be decoupled from the uselessness of the institution, but that is the kind of abstraction which goes against the grain. It's a tough one: to divorce the principle from the personality. So for all his talk about accelerating the republican debate when he took over as prime minister, Kevin Rudd has mothballed the issue until at least his second term.
The survival of the monarchy in Australia is endlessly intriguing. From Gallipoli to the great betrayal in World War II, the Brits have not always treated Australia with much respect or consideration. And yet that has never fuelled any significant anti-British backlash, save for the odd sledge on the cricket field or a bit of flippant Pom-bashing in the bar. Equally, you would have logically thought that the character traits which many Australians hold dear, such as their laconic informality, lack of snobbery, anti-authoritarianism (though this is surely exaggerated) and egalitarianism, would have militated against the idea of hereditary privilege.
My sense is that so much cultural space in Australia is occupied by the British made or British influenced that the idea of a British head of state is not as incongruous as it might be. And then there's the demographic factor: the huge, if declining, proportion of Australians whose roots are in Britain.
I've written a longer piece on the whole question which has sparked a debate here. You can read the full piece in full here.
So over to you. Why did the referendum fail in 1999, and why this week was it the constitutional monarchists rather than the republicans who seemed in much more chipper mood as they look to the future?
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~07~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Hi Nick,
The monarchy has widely been regarded as an anachronism since long before 1999. But its a plush and comfortable anachronism. Like the flag that has failed to be replaced despite multiple competitions, the Monarchy's place in Australia's history tends to outweigh the irritation of it being outmoded. Trivialities such as deleting "royal" from the RSPCA and Royal Fly Doctors caused more consternation than Queen has since the dismissal.
And the Australian President is like a four blade razor. A solution no one has actually been asking for. The number of Australians that are desperate to create more power for more politicians could be assembled on a pin head.
Unless the constitution can be rewritten for $2.50, most Australians would rather pay off our brand new debt- isn't that the real danger for foreign control?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Australia is essentially a de facto republic anyway,this is the problem for republicans,if the country became a republic, very little would change in the way our government functions.It's difficult to convince Australian voters of the need for any constitutional change(compulsory voting is probably a factor in this)so monarchists can benefit from this inertia.Of course the republican campaign was remarkably inept,all Howard needed to do was play the "honest broker" and allow the republicans to fight amongst themselves.
It's ludicrous that Oz has a foreign head of state,but given the glacial pace of constitutional change here, the UK will probably become a republic first.
This strange situation is not unique to Australia, we could also ask why Canada and NZ are still constitutional monarchies.
Complain about this comment
The Monarchists should celebrate while they still can. The referendum defeat in '99 was a setback for Republicans but that was all it was. You have to remember that the first time the Australian colonies talked about federation, it failed. It took more than a decade before the subject was back on the agenda and some more years yet to come to fruition. It was inevitable then that Australia would federate and become an independent nation and it is also inevitable that Australia will become a republic, the only question is when?
John Howard played a good game and the Republican movement was outplayed. Howard's legacy (and that of the Monarchists) will be that for a few brief years he held back the tide of Australian public opinion, not something to be celebrating i would have thought.
Complain about this comment
Nick the history of Australia calling for a republic goes back to early settlement when the Irish migrants were treated as slaves by the Brits in the name of the Colonial Master's figure head...the Royals of that time.
Later, with the formation of the Labor Party...even their name was meant to reflect America..and its republican status...with its supporters, both the Irish and the workers generally, came the need for the conservative side of politics..who have always be Monarcists...to stop the republic movement having its way. Considering the Conservatives have been in government more in Australia than the 'workers' representatives, it is natural that the attempts to get us to become a Republic, won't happen under conservatives...and I honestly don't believe Malcolm Turnbull is truly a Republican.
And Nick, you rightly state that "And then there's the demographic factor: the huge, if declining, proportion of Australians whose roots are in Britain."
You are right, the proportion of imports to Australia from Britain are declining, but their presence is stronger than ever. It is almost impossible to find a person, speaking with a British accent here in Australia, that doesn't believe the removal of the Royals as our head of state, will be an excuse for us to become 'Asian'. Even those that don't support a monarchy in their own country.
Of course, as I have said before, all this would change if Prince Charles were to become King...but considering the longevity of the Queen mother, I would guess Charlie is likely to go before his mother.
Complain about this comment
I should probably start this post by stating that I am aware, as a Brit, my personal preferences for a particular style of government in Australia matter not one iota.
Considering Nick's thoughts on why the refrendum went as it did, I find a lot to agree with. The one bit I might disagree with, is the reasoning that a British head of state is acceptable to many Australians because of the presence of so much other British influence.
While it is true to say that quite a lot media output is UK produced and that Britain and the rest of the EU feature highly in the news and sporting pages - there's certainly no sense of Australia being a country that is yearning for, or massively welcoming of British influence! I'd wager that you'd be more likely, for instance, to see a story on how the UK is still in recession, rather than one on improving British exports.
No, if anything, Lizzy seems to be seen in a slightly detached way. Sure, she's British, but the old kind of British, nothing to do with that country's current PM or culture. I suppose that might show that she does a good job of remaining impartial or it might be seen as showing the irrelevance of the current system.
Complain about this comment
Yes, it has been mildly surprising to find that both Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull have made very little attempt to broach the republic topic.
I think the failed referendum has more to do with distrust of politicians in general and the fact that none of its supporters could adequately explain to the Australian public just what form a republic and head of state would take. Australians are notoriously reluctant when it comes to constitutional change.
Also John Howard did run a quite clever monarchist campaign, and I guess to his credit, at least he didn't descend into the rather sickening, cringe worthy words that I've read Robert Menzies used in reference to both the Queen and Britain ie. the speech referencing poet Thomas Ford "I did but see her passing by, and yet I love her till I die" and others like "I'm British to my bootstraps". Though mind you, John Howard is 'interesting' in that he is both a monarchist and yet best buddy of warmonger former US President George W Bush.
(An aside since you mention the World Wars: Hooray for John Curtin who had the guts to recall our troops to fight the war in the Pacific. I was absolutely horrified to read that Churchill not only tried to redeploy our troops but tried to do so without even the courtesy of asking our Prime Minister)
This issue is probably partly generational too ie. some older Aussies may feel a closer affinity to the Queen while younger Aussies, from what I see, hear and experience, don't really think of her or Britain at all - their interests are very different and their eyes are firmly turned elsewhere. Actually, it will be quite interesting to observe the reactions to Prince William’s brief visit here in January next year.
On the whole I would venture to say that right at this moment Australia has more important issues to deal with - the assylum seeker issue, just what is in this climate change treaty that Kevin Rudd is so keen to be involved with, the usual infrastructure improvement problems, our 1550 troops serving in Afganistan, and possibly tax reform will be on the agenda soon.
Complain about this comment
I am not australian myself, but have a number of friends born there and anotehr lot who have emmigrated to there so have access to several points of view.
The referendum failed for precisely the very reason it should not be done again, money.
Australia is already a republic in all bar name, they already have a head of state (the prime minister) who does the actual running of the country.
The monarchy costs Australia next to nothing (unlike the UK) yet comes in handy as most of it's charitable institutions cover Australia in their remit. Officially changing to a republic would incur a massive cost with thousands of hours spent redrafting constitutions, rebranding organisations, likely new flag and currency designs.
Another reason it will prbably fail in the future is ironically immigration and not the obvious kind of brits moving there. Inf act a lot of brits who move out there tend to lean towards and not away from republicanism. It is the Chinese, Japanese, Indian and African imports who seem to lean more towards keeping the status quo. Perhaps it's just that, status quo, after all they decide to mov to Australia as it is now, why would they want that changing? But also it's that the Monarchy these days is held in much higher regard in many ex/non-empire nations than it is by Australians or even un Brits. It is a quaint tradition, one of the few real traditions in the Western world that has not been overly commercialised, much more akin to long-standing traditions in other parts of the world.
Complain about this comment
I can't really get excited by the monarchy-republican debate. I think that reform of the States/Commonwealth system is more urgent priority for Australia, to get rid of the huge levels of over-government. Maybe the impasse will be broken when Charles III comes to be head of state of Australia.
In the meantime, the best way to light a fire under the republican movement would be to get NZ to become a republic first (a very likely possibility). The Aussies will squirm when they see the Kiwis getting ahead and showing off their own president and taunting King Charlie's banana monarchy.
Complain about this comment
Hi Nick,
As an eighteen year old currently on a "gap" year in an Adelaide this blog is very interesting. On a more petty note - it gives me some great ammunition over the weekend, providing we can win the rugby!
In seriousness though, I remember very little about the referendum (except, vaguely, asking my Mum, with all the loyalty of an 8 year-old patriot,why on earth anyone would want to get rid of the Queen.). It is, however, a matter I found interesting on my arrival here.
Working in a school I am surrounded by both older and wiser teaching staff, and young and vociferous boys. When asked, the general consensus that Australia should get rid of the monarchy. However, I have been the only one to implement a conversation about it since my arrival. Which for me, is all that needs to be said about this argument: if it ain't broke don't fix it. Yes, Australian's don't particularly like the monarchy, but it isn't a massive problem (provided there isn't another "1975") and it doesn't much get in the way, or indeed feature in their lives particularly!
This is the most blatant reason. Throw in the cost and all the factors listed above (and more, including the huge attachment placed on the southern cross on the flag - what would become of that?), and it really makes no sense, for now at least, for Australia to abandon the Queen as head of state!
Great blogs, keep them coming.
Complain about this comment
Nick do you or your readers know who pays for the Queen's visits to Australia and Canada? Is it from either country's taxes, from British taxes, or does it come from her own money?
I have searched the web and cannot find an answer.
Complain about this comment
Australians know they have a pretty good life in a pretty good country. Second best in the world now apparently after Norway and I don't know too many people who would want to move there. Any major constitutional change is giving up what we have for a promise of something else. It is a risk. And when we have so much that is good already why would we want to blow it? Especially when what is promised is not something so much better anyway. Let the other countries have their revolutions as they search for a better way to run things. Australia has already found one.
Complain about this comment
Ok, i have a few points.
Apprently being a republic helps 'Australia' to form it's identity and culture this is a absolute load of bullocks.
Kevin Rudd wants a Union with asia and this would bring in even higher immigration levels from Asia, yet destorying more of the so called culture, as the numbers would build even more resulting in more asians-european ratio.
The Australian goverments are just being power-hungry and instead of really telling us why they are pushing for a republic they are hiding behind their stupid little excuses.
Ok suggestion.
I live in London but i was born in Melbourne, my parents are british citizens. I would like to see Australia pursue to create a stronger relationship with britain perhaps being a free movement and economic relationship with the monarch full power of Australia. This could keep our culture strong like the old days, of lots of british immigrants.
The world is pushing towards globalization and i don't see Australia or New Zealand getting any better for individual if a union is created with asia only politics and power would grow not the livestyle or living standards. The commonwealth is generally like a union of many ex british colonies what's the point of leaving it? It could be like our 'union' as Rudd wants to feel a 'part' of something.
Referendum for 100% power to the queen i say and get Rudds republican a out!
Complain about this comment
Well in all honesty, i do believe a econimic union with indonesia allowing movement also would destory the country, Do you think more european-australians are going to go to indonesia or vice versa? They will not benefit our lives actually except our gdp per capita will decline to levels of slavery in comparison to what it is now. (15th? throughout the world)
Complain about this comment
Hackerjack @ 7 and superskinz @ 9 make very valid points about the costs involved in implementing a republic and yes this certainly was (and still will be one in the future) an obstacle for the republican movement.
Superskinz I don't think the southern cross on our flag is a problem - it's more likely the union jack that would be removed.
DanielLondon, unfortunately economic ties with Britain declined after it decided to join the EEC in 1973, and I read with stunned sadness the mess and debate going on in Britain over what has now become a political entity, the EU. There doesn't seem to be much hope for a turning back now. In the meantime, Australia's biggest trading partners have become China and Japan, so perhaps it's all a bit late to look toward a re-establishment of trade etc between the two countries.
Complain about this comment
#6 Yes Prince William’s visit will be interesting.
Interesting to see if he’s given a “fair go” or made “fair game”
I imagine on the eve of his visit the Aussie media will find something to stir up. Probably the cost of his visit just like Harry‘s trip, after all it’s an unofficial trip so there be no national anthem to moan about.
I spend my time flicking between Australia and the UK. If I put my Australian hat on I'm a Republican if I put my British hat on I’m a Monarchist.
But usually when there is a Royal visit to Australia, the things that are said, the things that are written, are just ludicrous and pathetic.
Everyone in the media seems desperate during any Royal visit to highlight the Republican cause.
One day when the 1st Aussie President makes he maiden visit to the UK do you think the British media will stir up the same dross that Royals often experience when they visit Australia.
Complain about this comment
Human beings are a backward lot. Taken advantage of by bankers and politicians, usually voting against their own best interest and supporting institutions that are of little value. Technology is not the advancement of society, only a reflection of ability to create things. The world is a mess and the various governmental structures are all lacking and mostly corrupt. Warlords in suits are still warlords. Having rushed to a half step out of the cave, we thump our chest and howl at the moon. Any honest assessment of things would conclude our territorial and social attachments have grown in size but retained 5,000 year old motivations. The bank building is taller than the governmental building and that is how we determine power. The name of the handmaiden is never very important. Queen or PM, both are concubines of the banker.
Complain about this comment
The majority of Australians are just not as uncomfortable with our constitutional monarchy as Mr Bryant assumes.
To dismantle our foundations makes as much sense as ridding ourselves of cricket, or knocking down our heritage buildings, or knocking back a cup of tea, or replacing the national language with another, on the basis that these too are 'uneasy reminders' of our British ties.
First generation Aussies like myself are forever grateful that this great country opened its doors and welcomed our immigrant parents, who sought a better life. We are proud of our nation's rich heritage and are indebted to those Anglo settlers, as well as other ethnicities, who tamed this wild and barren land, transforming it into the thriving, rich land of opportunity that it is today.
Yesterday's cultural cringe is a neurosis that we have steadily grown out of, precisely because, as a nation, we have matured. Let's not decry our historical ties with the Crown. Let's embrace our history, and continue to advance Australia fair.
Complain about this comment
indigosailor @ 15: Yep I agree with alot of what you've said. Unfortunately IMHO the standards of much of our media services aren't always that great (on just about any given issue actually) and is often inane junk that does us no favours. I actually hope that William is given a fair go, and given the current status quo, the reality is that one day he will be our head of state and Head of the Commonwealth, so I welcome his visit to NZ and unoffical visit to Australia and I'm interested in what, if anything at this point in time, he has to say. Harry, unfortunately, has copped an absolute roasting at the hands of the media services in Britain in the past hasn't he?
Anyways I guess we've strayed from the topic a bit so back to the republican question.
Complain about this comment
Australia has reached the point in its history when it needs to become a republic. Any person who has flown into Heathrow airport knows that we are not recognised as British subjects any more. Australia is a continent in its own right, and is also not part of Asia, and will never be so. We need to develop a method to elect our president that is bipartisan and must work to enure this occurs. Australia has proven in the past that it will welcome new citizens and these people have assimilated into the Australian community and ethos. Consevatives do not want change, and cling to the past because of the power given to them. Other former nations of the British empire have become republics e.g. Canada and India, and now it is the time for Australia. I know I could never have the same regard for Charles as I do for his mother, and I believe that a majority of Australians have the same opinion.
Complain about this comment
The Australian Republic model that most republicans here want is as follows.
1. The President replaces the Governor General.
2. The President, the peoples representative, not the British Royal family, would therefore be the head of our nation.
3. The President would be wholly elected by the people, not the John Howard model of 50% the people, and 50% the government of the day.
4. The powers of the President would remain as is current for the GG. Not, as some scaremongers suggest, a copy of the dictatorial American Presidential system.
As to the Asian connection. It makes sense that we become closer trading partners with Asia as we are in the Asian region. This does not mean we will loose our identity and somehow become Asian. Quite the opposite. Because of our strong aliance with both America and Britain (And Europe generally) We will continue to be seen as we have to this point... a multicultural country willing to act as neighbours to some of the world's largest populations.
Our welfare in times of crisis to the Asian community has us being accepted by many, while there have been times when America has been denied access. Indonesia's tsunami and Burma's cyclone are examples.
As to the British argument and the anti Rudd comments above. The whole problem with Australia that we have had under the Howard Government is that we stacked our population with British migrants to the exclusion of some very clever and very necessary Asians. Contrary to Pauleen Hanson's comments, we were flooded by Brits. A visit to the Bureau of Statistics and a read throu
Complain about this comment
(Sorry for the break in posting, server dropped out mid subject.)
A visit to the Bureau of Statistics and a read through the past few census results will show just how many Brits we really imported to this country.
We need a ballance, not an extreme of either> We need an identity that is Australian, not British, and not Asian....Australian.
For once, when Australia is involved in some world event, or conflict, I would like to see the world media refer to us as Australians...not as they do now by calling us British.
Rudd's policy on migration is in keeping with standard Labor policy, so why he is being singled out is something I can't fathom.
Remember, the growth and expansion Australia is facing, will be better met with people from this region, rather than those coming from a totally different environment, such as Europe, Canada or America.
People who know of the cyclonic rains, the dry and arid lands and the coastal waters are far better at serving Australian interests than those in the colder regions of the northern hemosphere.
And in conclusion. Australians were dealing with South East Asians long before white invasion. Aboriginal people from the north and north western regions of Australia traded with these Asian people such things as native fruits and root vegetables for which they received exotic fruits and vegetables and fish from Asia.
And as to Republic Australia's attitude to the Royal family, should the Royals choose to visit at that time, one only has to observe how Americans greet the Queen on any of her many visits to the States. I believe she would get a hugely warm welcome from Republicans, after all it is not the Royals that Republicans object to, but the system of Governance. Long may they reign....in England.
Complain about this comment
Being pro Republican is not being anti British, it is understanding that for many Australians the Republic represents how we wish the world to perceive us in this 21st century.
For example, I for one wish only the best for Great Britain's sovereign and yet I do not believe the British sovereign should also be Queen of Australia because in that position, as the Australian Constitution currently stands she is able to "declare war, make peace, send ambassadors, direct the actions of the military and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances and international agreements for which no approval by Australia's parliament is required".
Granted, the Queen of Australia would probably not exercise any of those prerogatives without consulting the Australian parliament but why should such a system exist in this modern, mature and independent Australia?
And why should all new members of the Australian parliament be required to swear allegiance to the British monarch as sovereign of Australia and to her heirs and successors?
Why should all members of the Australian Army and Air Force also be required to swear such an oath?
Why should members of the British royal family be Colonels-in-Chief of Australian Army units including the Australian Army Regiment, the Australian Armored Corps, the Australian Army Medical Corps and the Australian Corps of Signals, to name a few?
Why should the Queen of Australia's husband be Admiral of the Fleet of the Australian navy, Marshal of the Australian Air Force and Field Marshal of the Australian Army?
Not long after talking office, the current Australian Government expressed its goal of seeking a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council and a more active role in that organisation. Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said "We think it appropriate that we play a part in helping reform the United Nations so that it becomes more effective and efficient"and he reiterated Prime Minister Rudd's stated goal that "Australia should play an active role as a creative middle power".
Yet how can Australia achieve such goals when many of the world's nations are unsure of Australia's independence from Britain and this nation's ability to stand on its own two feet on the world stage.
A reading of the Queen of Australia's powers as noted above would surely lead many nations to assume that the Australian parliament is in fact rather powerless.
The referendum on the Australian Republic ten years ago was a farce. At the time, when 70% of professed Australian Republicans favored the election of an Australian President by direct vote, the people of Australia were asked to decide whether "To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament".
Then Prime Minister Howard's negative view of the Republic was instrumental in the referendum being defeated.
As the Hon. Justice Kirby, Justice of the High Court of Australia noted in an address to the Faculty of Law, University of Birmingham in March 2000 "...the personal opposition of Prime Minister Howard to the proposed constitutional change was undoubtedly a very important factor in the defeat of the referendum".
The full text of Mr Justice Kirby's address may be found at www.lawfoundation.net.au
Ten years after the last referendum on the Republic it is time to go to the Australian people once again with a much more equitable and honest question to be decided upon.
Though the links that tie Australia to Britain are silken links with much to recommend,it is time they were severed.
Let the world benefit from the honesty, way of life and inherent nobility that Australia has so ably demonstrated in the 100 years since federation.
Let Australia be truly independent and its people be truly free.
Complain about this comment
The myriad of logical arguments in favour of constitutional reform, the weight of over 150 years of republican history, and the ludicrously antiquated dotty and malicious arguments in favour of the monarchy from the aged and old money elite aside, an Australian republic is a demographic inevitability.
An overwhelming majority of young people want an Australian head of state, want the ability to vote for the highest office holder in the land, and that means that one day it will actually happen. But for so long as the baby boomers so defiantly and stoically avoid putting their second foot in the grave then time will be bought.
The Monarchist movements (in all of their dysfunctional glory) are on the losing side of a battle as old as the nation itself. The Commander-In Chief of the armed forces, the individual with the power to overturn Australian democracy should be elected by, and have their conduct and behaviour sanctioned by the Australian people - the very people who should be the real sovereigns of their country.
The real threat to the future of our democracy is the office of the official who is placed at the very centre of Australian governance in our quaint and cheerfully insidious constitution: the Governor-General. That's the real theoretical enemy of republicans, not the Queen - the head of that racist, discriminatory, religious foreign monarchy.
The proponents of logical and democratic constitutional reform are centrally interested in moving toward a republic, not away from the monarchy.
It will happen, and when it does it will be done correctly - but Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull need to demonstrate some courage, because Australia becoming a republic will happen, it should happen, and if they're clever they'll see to it NOW.
Complain about this comment
At #19 holmes16 wrote: "Other former nations of the British empire have become republics e.g. Canada and India, and now it is the time for Australia."
Canada is not a republic. It is a constitutional monarchy like Australia. Interestingly, a week ago, Jeffery Simpson in the Toronto Globe & Mail canvassed the issue of a republic for Canada in light of the current visit to that country by Prince Charles and his wife. Comments from Mr Simpson's readers in Canada, in response to his article show in general a very much stronger feeling for the monarchy than I observe or sense in Australia. The debate about a republic for Canada seems much less developed than it is here in Australia where a republic is generally viewed as inevitable but it's a bit too hard for us to figure out how we do it so we've left it to simmer for the time being. Canada is very similar to Australia but has some complicating factors that we don't have. Maybe they will eventually get around to showing us how to do move from a federated system government under a constitutional monarchy to one under a republican form. I hope that we can instead show them how to effect a transition to a robust republic.
Complain about this comment
Australia has been tied to the UK by not one but several umbilical cords
over the past 230 years. If and when Australia chooses to cut the final constitutional link remains a question of political and philosophical speculation, if not popular concern.
There are strong human ties not only to the present Queen, who has remained a consistent and perhaps comforting image of stability when many other features of daily life are frenetically changing,but also in the wider comunity.So the pull of the familiar and 'the better the devil you know' and inertia factors will need to be overcome by some compelling push forces, if a republic is to become a reality.
Please excuse the unintended pun but climate change is or should be a much more burning issue for the present generation of Australian political activists.So constitutional change is neither at nor near the top of urgent public or political policy agendas.Australia is still coming to terms with its relationship with the UK and its mixed legacy.
However, there are some small signs that Kevin Rudd is willing to confront some of the darker sides of this legacy.John Howard, of course,could not say sorry to the Stolen Generation any more than he could consider removing the Queen as Head of State.Rudd has now agreed to say sorry to both Forgotten Australians and former British Child Migrants-perhaps an example of Pom bashing and a group hidden from history - on 16/11/09.
So the hopes of republicans may not be burninng brightly but they can draw comfort from Rudd's ability to face issues which Howard's
regime either could not or would not consider.Becoming a republic implies the self-confidence to think and act independently and, occasionally, to cut the chains of unhelpful histories.
Complain about this comment
Most Australians have an opinion on the republic, but seldom if ever initiate a discussion on it, as Superskinz (above) has found.
That always comes from the Brits.
I can guarantee you that with the election of any new Australian PM, or any royal visit, the UK press's reporting will bring up the Republic as if it was on everyone's minds down under. I know because I live in the UK and get all the "I see you lot want to get rid of the queen" comments every time this happens.
Still, I'm a republican, and would like to see it .... one day.
Complain about this comment
I have always been a republican. When we got married in the seventies it was still the custom at the reception to have a toast to the Queen. We went to quite a bit of trouble to leave that out.
When teaching Year 2, I could judge the potential of the new class by asking where the queen lived. Generally someone would answer Queensland. If other kids laughed, the class was promising. When they nodded in agreement, it could point to a challenging year ahead.
This is, of course, an example of how little the monarchy actually intrudes on our lives these days. Many of us my age are more or less forced to have strong ties with England by the custom of many of our young adult children working in London for a few years. Reading about the Queen actually gives me a strange sense of connection to their lives, as unfortunately for me both my kids are there.
To be quite honest, although I am still a republican, I really do not care much any more! Having just been in Canada, and having spoken to people about their attitude, it seems the Quebec issue is involved there, but of course Canadians are much too polite to say so directly!
Complain about this comment
I first visited Australia seven years ago and what struck me then, and in subsequent visits, was how very Anglo the place is. In a country with a pub and a fish and chip shop on every high street and with Victorian public buildings and monuments that look as if they've been transplanted from Manchester and Birmingham, a visiting Brit can hardly fail to feel at home.
But perhaps the strongest link is that between families and friends. It's hard not to meet Australians who either have family in the UK or have visited here, often for months or years. There may be fewer Brits emigrating to Australia nowadays, but a huge number of ten-pound poms made the journey in the 1950s and 1960s and their offspring have maintained strong family ties with the UK, made easier by cheap international travel. And the European Union is an added incentive. Many Aussies have the right to a UK passport, which means they can travel and work anywhere in the European Union.
Complain about this comment
1. The President replaces the Governor General.
2. The President, the peoples representative, not the British Royal family, would therefore be the head of our nation.
3. The President would be wholly elected by the people, not the John Howard model of 50% the people, and 50% the government of the day.
4. The powers of the President would remain as is current for the GG. Not, as some scaremongers suggest, a copy of the dictatorial American Presidential system.
--------
So the only thing that would chance would be the GG's name and that he would be seen as head fo state instead of the queen? This benefits Australia how exactly?
Complain about this comment
Removal of the hierachy from Australia will be removing a piece of culture from our country. The names of our places, are all after British places, the architecture from our historic buildings, religion and even our cusines (fish and chips, Baked beans, Our Pubs) you will find only Australia and Britain have these things.
we must not forget our roots being british and abandon them.
We have a fair constitution cause it's based off westminister.
I think becoming a republic we are just trying to be more and more like the United States, i suggest keep things the way they are. It feels to American to have a 'president'.
I think Australias relationship with asia should go as far as trade agreements, nothing else. I would like to see Australia/Canada have some sort of agreements, and Australia with the rest of the pacific although i don't think fiji is a option possibly caledonia, tahiti, hawaii? some countries that are not going to bring our GDP(per capita) to rock bottom.
Complain about this comment
#29
I totally agree with your comment that replacing the GG with a symbolic president is a huge waste of time and a make-over that benefits no-one. It's the PM that has to go. Australians have natural good sense to steer clear of the party-bought-style of US presidency candidates, but this change in the constitution needs another revolution first - the dissolution of state powers as the United States of Australia just doesn't work. As for the political cutting ties with the monarchy, well that's a foregone conclusion. This is not a slap in the face for our British cousins but a necessary step forward in Australian nationhood. Our blood ties won't be easily forgotten, but it really is time for a life-giving transfusion. My great-great-great-great-great Irish and German ancestors who settled this wild country will be tickled pink.
Complain about this comment
Somewhat paradoxically, it's because of Australia's English origins that Australian republicanism has flourished
Current Australian republicanism is not derived from Irish republicanism as is sometimes stated, it's a derivative of English republicanism. of the 'rights of common man' variety and came attached to 19th Century chartism brought by British immigrants.
There were other forms of republicanism, including some earlier, in colonial Australia - Irish, American, European and John Dunmore Lang had a kind of religious republicanism - but the dominant form was English
Republicanism was boosted pre Federation, which is when most of my family became republicans
So, republicanism in Australia is deceptively strong, even when there is little media attention as it has been around for long philosophical discussion rather than the tumbrels and bloody revolution type
Australia has a constitutional problem, in that the Constitution was written in 1901 for a country intended to remain part of an Empire with a distant royal Head of State preoccupied with other matters.
In recent decades as Australia and the UK have forged separate futures the GG in Australia has become the functional Head of State, the Queen has become irrelevant. It's the GGs position - particularly the reserve powers - which hobbled the previous referendum, and might do so again
The Australian GG has powers, including the power to sack a government which have not been seen in Britain since 1834
The current status of the GG is extraordinary in a democracy - unelected, not answerable to the public, operating on issues beyond the law and with the power to sack a government.
So any republican model needs to resolve the nature of the reserve powers and mechanism for removing an inmcompetent government
Complain about this comment
Re 29, and supported by 31: "So the only thing that would chance would be the GG's name and that he would be seen as head fo state instead of the queen? This benefits Australia how exactly?"
The GG had absolutely no power of his or her own other than being the Queen's representative. How would Brits like it if Britain was controlled by an EU leader in Brussels, and a non entity that leader's representative in Britain?
The President would takeover from a 'foreign' head of state, namely the Queen.
The Queen is not elected, and we the people of Australia have absolutely no say in who will become the British Monarch...then again neither do the Brits.
The power the Monarchy holds over Australia is frightening if given to the wrong person.
Australia needs a head of state whose sole responsibility is Australians, not half a dozen ex colonies, as is the case now. That person needs to be accessible when needed, not when they have time.
As to how the election of a President as opposed to a GG/Queen, would benefit Australia and Australians, firstly we would be able to communicate directly to the President, and not have to go through some nobody elected because they have done the favour of the PM of the time.
There is nothing democratic about our current head of state system. Therefore we are not truly an independent democracy, to the Australian people, for the Australian people, buy the Australian people.
Complain about this comment
If you travel widely throughout this world as I have had the opportunity to do, you will find that most non-Auatralians are confused about who we really are.
"You have a Queen of Australia but you are not a colony?" "All new members of your Parliament have to swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia who is not an Australian citizen?" "Why do you have the British flag on your flag? Are you independent?"
The world will not understand who we are until we establish a 100% Australian identity, and that identity can only truly be defined when we become the Republic of Auatralia with the ability to elect our own Head of State by popular vote.
Think of the honour such a position would carry with it.
Think of the man or woman this nation of clever, proud, freedom loving people would elect to be their President.
Think of how that man or woman would carry out the job as the representaive of the hopes, dreams, traditions and soul of Australia and her people both at home and internationally.
The key to understanding the passion with which we Republicans pursue this dream is in understanding the position of President of Auatralia, is beyond politics.
It is beyond being Prime Minister, for it is beyond the myriad petty things that occupy politicians.
It is a position of aspiration and inspiration for every boy and girl who grows up in this exquisite nation and the manifestation of all that is inherently noble within the Australian character.
And you can be absolutely sure that the Australian voter will choose after much deliberation and discussion, the right person for the job every time, whatever the length of the President's term.
It is time for Australians to elect their Head of State and thus be able to see the dignity, wisdom, humanity, courage, nobility and humility, amongst other ideal attributes, with which the President of Australia carries out that function within our Government and Constitution.
It is time, to be us.
Complain about this comment
I think it's largely a case of "if it's not broken, don't fix it". Australians are a practical people, on the whole, and in reality not many practical benefits (if any) would accrue from becoming a republic. It will happen eventually, I am sure, and perhaps sooner rather than later, but no one's life will be particularly improved (or worsened) by the change.
One issue that still has not been resolved are some of the details about a republic. I think it's generally agreed that the president would be a figurehead rather than having a position of political power, but beyond that there are lots of questions, which need to be addressed because the changes to the constitution proposed in any referendum need to be precise.
The 1975 issue is a red herring, really. What happened then didn't happen because Australia was not a republic. A similar thing could happen again if Australia were a republic if the system allowed it, which it might well.
A side issue that hasn't been addressed at all, really, is what the status of the Queen with respect to the states would be if Australia became a republic. In theory, a change to the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia would not necessarily affect the states' constitutions. An interesting point for the lawyers...
Complain about this comment
#35 How eloquently you have encapsulated the sentiments of many republican Australians. We have to put an end to ridiculous and condescending suggestions, like Prince William could be our next GG, which borders on desperation. Let's turn the clock back to the pre-Federation debate about the type of nation we want to be: multicultural, equitable, independent and prosperous. It's undeniable that Britain has imported to Australia some of the finest examples of governance and law. But Britain did very well out of the colony economically. Australia's place in this century is firmly rooted in the booming Pacific rim; among the other republics.
Complain about this comment
No. 36: I think you must mean no. 34, not no. 35, since I don't think I encapsulated the sentiments of republican Australians, eloquently or otherwise!
Complain about this comment
Sorry 35, of course it's a response to #34.
Complain about this comment
Changing to a republic is a useless waste of money. We are already a republic anyway in everything but the official name.
Thats what i love about Australia, we don't need to rely on this useless symbolic stuff to make us feel good. We are practical people who enjoy practical things to make our lives better and more comfortable. Who cares if some random in another country still thinks we are a colony of the UK, thats their problem not ours. Changing to a republic will not give us bigger houses, better working conditions, Or a big TV.
Australians are practical people who want to enjoy their lives with their friends and family. Our patriotism should come from our lifestyle, not some useless symbols that have no use. Other countries may need them, But their lifestyle isn't as good as ours so they have to take pride in something else. Most other nations are full of highly strung people. Australia is not.
Complain about this comment
#39 : "A big TV"?
Complain about this comment
Even if the Australian Head of State was just symbolic I think it should be changed, but the position is not symbolic. The Australian Head of State carries significant Constitutional powers as mentioned in #32, even if the GG is the one to carry them out and the GG these days is Australian
I can remember the Vietnam War when our Head of State lived 18,000km away in a country uninvolved in that war, a highly inappropriate arrangement while Australia was at war. That only worked when both Britain and Australia were part of an Empire at war
The republic referendum failed but it was not a complete failure in that it publicised a number of models, too many to list here. However they fell into 3 categories..
#minimalist
This means just keeping the current arrangement of the PM appointing the GG (president) and removing links to the monarch. A variant is the McGarvie model where a panel of 3 'worthies' recommend to the PM who should be appointed president (and also deal with removing a dysfunctional president).
This has the advantage of being in keeping with the Constitution but fails the test of democracy in involving the electorate
#bipartisan appointment
There are various forms but the one presented at referendum was that candidates be nominated by the public to a nominations committee. then the PM and Leader of Opposition agree on a candidate, then combined Houses of Parliament ratify the appointment by a 2/3 majority.
This was intended to reduce the risk of a political appointee but again it reduces the involvement of the electorate
#direct election
Again there are various models, but they involve a vote by the electorate. One tricky aspect is avoiding a popular rival to the PM, if for example Rudd gets 53% of the vote to become PM as he did in 2007 but an incoming candidate gets 90% of the vote of the electorate to become president
Complain about this comment
OzNozz I am sorry but symbolism can be a mighty thing. If it were not people would not officially marry, there would be no need to christen children, the Ashes wouldnt matter, the list goes on. It is important to me and many Australians who is the official head of state. Under the current system our head of state (not the GG who is only a representative) will always be an anglican, a foreigner, probably white, only there by birth and live on the other side of the world. The next one in line would also prefer to be Camillas tampon.
In the blog titled "Is Australia ready for acclaim" you stated that you hope all those ignorant foreigners respect us because we deserve it. So you yourself say it matters.
What matters to me is that one day we can have an actual head of state who represents ALL of us. My vote goes to Patrick Dodson.
There you go Kevin, everyone says your not doing anything, how about making a real difference. And just to clear things up...the name scrap the jack is in reference to our flag.
Complain about this comment
One of the problems with a direct election of a president, and also with a direct appointment by the PM, is avoiding political appointments to the job, something to be avoided if the position were to be a figurehead, symbolic one. Even if the appointment of actual career politicians was not allowed, it is easy to envisage that, in practice, Labour appointees would be tired old union leaders or business people who have supported Labour and that Coalition appointees would be big business leaders and the like — not an encouraging situation. For this reason I rather fancy the bipartisan, parliamentary approach mentioned by no. 41...
Complain about this comment
I see the UK /Australian relationship or is it Australian/UK relationship one of equals and not of master/servant. I expect that Canada and NZ sees it the same as Aust. NZ has at least partially turned the tide back to UK with the recent reinstatement of Imperial honours (and with about a 75% retrospective take up rate).
I was recntly relayed a conversation by a friend who was speaking to some US Army Officers who could not believe Australia wanted to sever ties. They saw this relationship as giving tangible international political value to Australia. It gave Australia a (small) voice in Europe which was in addition to any other forum we could have. It also meant that we maintained strong ties within the Commonwealth and helped a strong ABCA relationship. All these count albeit in small steps, towards Australia's prosperity and security in this increasingly uncertain world. If US citizens thought we were mad to be a republic then maybe they were on to something....
On another point if the UK wants Australia, Canada and NZ in the Commonwealth then maybe they whould be proactive.
The PM has said he wants Aust to grow by another 13 million people in the next 40 years with it seems about half by migration. The easiest group to assimilate are the Brits. In Canberra we have had 3% unemployment for years (just not enough staff) and 18 year old school leavers can get 25,000 pounds a year starting salary. Interested in migrating?
Regardless of any emotional attachments if any, I see strong linkages with the UK as having economic, political and security value to Aust and at no cost. On a personal level it gives young Australians such as my kids (and Brits) easier opprtunities to work overseas.
Complain about this comment
44# Steve,
I don’t think the UK would be proactive on fighting the monarchist corner in Australia. It’s a matter for Australians and not anyone else.
There is a small minority of Australians who just want to smack it to the Brits and have a very short term picture of where Australia should go, in the same way there are a small minority of Brits which enjoy a good sneer at Australia’s current arrangement.
But I think there is a real lack of realization in how much both Britain and Australia have changed. Britain’s future is with the EU. Australia’s future, if it wants one, is with Asia.
I think even if Australia became a republic the British government would still help Australia in international and regional forums such as the EU. In the same way Australia would help Britain in any Asian/Pacific forum. Australia and Britain would still be close allies.
Also Australia would most likely remain in the Commonwealth even if it became a republic (there are many examples of republics in the Commonwealth) And the social cohesion between the Britain and Australia would continue.
The Republic debate is Canada, New Zealand or Jamaica are all at very different stages.
I know some Canadians who feel that the current arrangement with the Queen is the only thing that differs between themselves and the USA, take it away and they become just another State of their southern neighbour.
Also in Canada the Quebec question is a far bigger national issue that becoming a Republic. It’s a bit like Queensland wanting to break away from the federation!
Complain about this comment
As a new Australian voter, and fresh out of High School, some of you may feel I have insufficient 'life experience' to be able to properly comment on this topic.
Keeping this in mind, I can only speak for those of my generation- those born in the 1990s. The monarchist movement is extremely strong in this new generation of voters. Teenage views towards a republic are largely apathetic, echoing Howard's status quo arguments.
The Republican movement needs to seriously reset itself. The referendum has failed once, and with today's anti- Republican sentiment the future for republicanism in Australia is bleak.
But then again, it is impossible to foresee how incompetent Prince Charles may prove himself to be.
Complain about this comment
I wonder how many of those that have commented here in favour of the continuance of the status quo or who commented against a Republic for Australia were actually born here, or whose parents were born here?
Like or loath him, John Howard was a very clever politician. He increased the acceptance of British migrants to Australia to 100,000 per year average, directly and indirectly, over his 11 year reign. His requisition for citizenship made sure he got the most Royalist of Brits he could, without breaking our rules. SO it goes without saying that any attempt to change Australia to a Republic will fall on deaf ears till those imports realise what a Monarchy system is doing to Australia...but by then we will vote out Labor and the Libs will elect another Menzies, Howard clone and on will go the destruction of any chance of Australia having an independence from Britain.
Complain about this comment
Looking at this from two perspectives, as a Brit I can't understand the need to get rid of the Queen as Head of State because Australia enjoys all the same constitutional benefits (if not more as yours is codified into a single document!) that the Monarchy bestows. Yet looking at this rationally I can sympathise with the Republican view.
Constitutionally, Australia does benefit far more under a Monarchy than it would under a Presidency. There have been posts quoting the Constitutional powers of the Monarch and the huge remit of powers the Monarch and its representative in Australia retains. Using this as an argument against Monarchy though is a red herring. Firstly, no modern (British) Monarch has ever exercised those powers without being advised to by their Prime Minister. The Constitutional Crisis of 1975 is an exception which proved the rule as the Monarch did not exercise the power she had to dismiss the Governor General or the new Prime Minister as it was a matter for Australia. The Governor General is bound by convention to exercise their power on the advice of the Prime Minister and that Prime Ministers are supposed to command the support of Parliament (usually the Lower House). Its the fact that the Monarchy doesnt use their powers without being advised by the democratically elected Prime Minister gives far greater freedom. Monarchs know they have no electoral mandate while if an elected President were in office, they would the electoral mandate to interfere in ways improper to the Westminster/Washington hybrid Australia uses.
Yet, the fact the Queen resides in Britain, along with the rest of the Royal Family, it does seem to be an anachronism for modern Australia to still have her in the position she's in. I do think Australia benefits from this royal linkage, and contrary to what no.34 says, the world's nations do not see Australia as a colony. It is incredibly naive to think that world powers do not know the status of Australia in relation to Britain. Okay, so maybe the average American doesn't understand the relationship. The average American may also ask whether, because I'm from Britain, I know the Queen. The world knows Australia is its own nation and has been for decades; getting rid of the Queen as Head of State to simply prove a point everybody knows is foolish.
Perhaps an elected Governor General may be best? Or one appointed by the Australian Parliament as a whole?
P.S
Nick, about the mentioning of the Great Betrayal of WW2 in the article and subsequent mentionings. Why can't people accept that this is a myth perpetuated by romantic nationalistic historians? Its a ridiculous concept that Britain "betrayed" Australia in the course of World War Two and especially on today, Remembrance Day, can we remember the many Britons who died in defence of Australia and the many Australians who died in defence of Britain. Please can this myth just be debunked!
Complain about this comment
I thank Old Hermit 48 for his posting, for he confirms everything I say about attitude of a Brit that comes to this country without a farthing of knowledge of our history.
I Googled 'Churchill abandones Singapore WWII' and got about 13 decent confirmations, including the fighting that went on between Churchill and our two WWII Prime Ministers. That included Robert Menzies who was a very close friend of Churchill.
I got slightly more when I Yahooed on the same subject.
And don't think Old Hermit is alone in his belief. The ignorance of ex Brits concerning our history is stunning.
Very few know that we didn't have any soldiers of worth here in Australia, to defend us against the Japanese because Churchill had commandeered them. It was a militia of Australians who blazed the Kokoda Trail.
Anyone watching the movie 'Australia' should wonder why we didn't have any airfoce in Darwin, after all it was known for at least a year before that the Japanese had planned to invade Australia.
Had it not been for America, we would now be a Japanese nation. I wonder where the ten-pound-poms would have gone to after the war? Canada?
Very few knew that British scientists carried out mustard gas experiments on Aussie soldiers, here in Queensland, during WWII. So severe were the burns from such experiments that some of the victims lost their testicles and penis. On returning home they were told to tell their wives and loved ones they had contracted some foreign venerial disease.
We don't know how many aboriginal people were killed directly and indirectly by the Atomic tests at Maralinga. And contrary to what Britain has been told, we received a pittance of monies by the British Government to clean up that site so as to restore the land to allow humans to go there. It is impossible to go to the actual target areas where the bombs were detonated, or the hundreds of kilometres surrounding the targets. This was aboriginal land, and they were never compensated.
And this is just a fraction of the history ignored by those from Britain who come here. Maybe the BBC could do some 'home truths' documentaries so as to educate Brits as to what was done in their name in the worlds recent history.
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile, as the BBC decides on how to 'paint' Australia's history to it's country's personal colours, the reader might like to read this Australian History: Please note how Britain conned Australia into syphoning off most of it's resources to Britain after the Great Depression, and hence why Australia couldn't defend itself against the Japanese.
http://ww2db.com/country.php?cid=9
Complain about this comment
Old Hermit 48 said: "The Governor General is bound by convention to exercise their power on the advice of the Prime Minister and that Prime Ministers are supposed to command the support of Parliament (usually the Lower House)."
So what you are supporting is a system where the Prime Minister of the day, overrules the Queen's authority, and determines what the GG does? How then can the GG's position be honourable? Yes, you are correct that this is a 'convention'...but that doesn't make it law.
It you believe this is a safe and reliable system then you are beyond my understanding...and I'd guess the majority of Australians if they fully understood our stupid system...but then again, as I've said repeatedly, the greater percentage of so called Aussies, still hold alegiance to Britain. Wasn't it Jesus who said 'You can't serve two masters. You get to love one and despise the other."?
Oh and we in Australia hold Rememberance Day on 11/11, two days time for us....three days for you...assuming you live in Britain.
Complain about this comment
Some comments on the posts:
#49: "...as a Brit I can't understand the need to get rid of the Queen as Head of State..."
1) That's right...as a Brit you CANNOT understand the passion we Australian republicans feel about this matter...this is for US to decide
2) This is not a debate about the past, it is a debate about the future, however if you would like to know more about WW2 regarding the fall of Singapore I suggest you read "AUSTRALIA AT WAR 1939 -1945: From Churchill to Macarthur" by David Day, currently Professor of Australian Studies at the Centre for Pacific and American Studies at the University of Tokyo, Japan
3) I currently live in Asia...the place with which Australia seeks more engagement and I can assure you that Australia's exact identity regarding its relationship with Britain is widely misunderstood
4) Under the ideal model, perhaps following the way Ireland's Constitution works, or Singapore's, the President of Australia would not be able to interfere in any political decisions...this is NOT the American system
#46: The reasons why so many Australians desire the Republic has nothing to do with the popularity or unpopularity of any particular British Sovereign at any particular time
#44: In my humble opinion, The Republic of Australia would most definitely wish to remain part of the Commonwealth
#43: Direct election of the President of Australia by a majority of Australian citizens is the ideal way to avoid "political appointments"
#42: Thank you for you words on symbolism...hear him...
#41: There is no need to worry about the "popularity quotient" of a directly elected President of Australia...the President and the Prime Minister would not COMPETE because the President would not speak on political matters in the same way Britain's Head of State does not speak on such matters...
#49,50,51: Good on you Pete...we disagreed on BIG AUSTRALIA...but not this time...hear him...
Complain about this comment
We are practically a republic now, the monarchy only has any power in Australia these days on the unspoken agreement that they agree never to use it.
I would vote the monarchy out for sure. Do we really want a head of state who cheers when we loose the Ashes?
Complain about this comment
52 oldnewshound: Mate I have a rotten server here in the bush. I don't know how many times I've posted in support of your points of view...we only hade one area I think where we disagreed...and what you said here in 52 is telling it as it is. They say the 'septics' are an arrogant and ignorant bunch, they don't hand a candle to the ignorance of some of the Brits that come here.
'Australia by Australians, for Australians'
Keep up the good work mate.
Complain about this comment
11Peter11 - Thank you for the clarity of your post @ 20 detailing the preferred Republic model and Hear! Hear! for your posts @ 49 and 50. Ditto Oldnewshound @ 52.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't also telling that a memorial to our ANZACS was only unveiled in London in 2003. Conversely the French have been honouring, for example, not only the 1200 Australians who died in the Battle of Villers-Bretonneux but every one of the 46,000 diggers who did not come home from the Western Front for years. Some of these French villages even go as far as celebrating Australia Day and have reminders such "Remember the Australians" carved into the entrances of their schools.
IMHO every school-aged kid in Australia should be taught a thorough history of Australia and this should be universal, regardless of which state they live in. Perhaps its also time for the leaders of the Republic movement to become proactive and vocal again.
In the meantime we'll do what we do every year and come together as a nation at 11am on the 11/11, Remembrance Day, and ANZAC Day on 25th April, to remember them.
Complain about this comment
A few more comments if I may...
#36 & 38: Thanks for your kind words...eloquent...if you say so.
#54: Thanks Pete...you are a mate.
#55: Thanks...Lest We Forget..and one more thought on your post. Much has been made about the feelings of the Diggers who have fought for Australia over the years, as if somehow they would be opposed to the Republic of Australia. Well, whose opinion is that?
My Dad was 17 when he joined the Australian Air Force in 1942 and served in New Guinea.
He rests now on a green hill overlooking the Indian Ocean in the Australian Armed Forces Cemetery in Fremantle with his mates, and in the Air Force tradition on his headstone is written only his rank, his name and the years of his birth and death.
I have been a proponent of the Australian Republic for almost 30 years and had many conversations with my father on the matter of the Republic.
He completely agreed with my thoughts and supported the push for the Republic wholeheartedly.
I have made a vow, on his grave not to return to Australia until we become the Republic of Australia.
I have no malice towards any other nation or people, I just want OUR people to stand up and take on ALL the responsibilities for which a mature and wise people should be responsible.
Complain about this comment
Ignorant Brit who knows nothing about Australia? Having visited your country a number of times (to visit family there I might add) and also being a historian who is studying and writing on Imperial relations in South East Asia I do happen to know a fair bit about the Second World War era and afterwards. And I can tell you clearly there was NO great betrayal.
The historian Carl Bridge has described this great betrayal myth as a travesty of truth and he's an Australian like you for goodness sake. Australia did not get abandoned to its fate by Britain when the Pacific War erupted. If that was the case, why attempt to honour the pledge to send a fleet to Singapore in the form of HMS Prince of Wales, one of our most modern battleships, HMS Repulse and HMS Indomitable (an aircraft carrier that never got there because it ran aground. Obviously the Captain was acting on orders from Churchill to screw Australia over...)? Surely you know of the situation Britain and the Royal Navy was faced with in 1941? The way the RN was committed to fighting 2 campaigns almost entirely unaided in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean as well as smaller campaigns in the North Sea and burden of the Arctic Convoys becoming apparent? If we didn't value Australia, why bother depleting our forces in those two campaigns to bolster the defences at Singapore?
As for the deployment of the Diggers during the Second World War, and the lack of Australian forces on the Australian mainland, you need to take the blinkers off and consider the wider world. If Britain had fallen or sued for peace in 1940, what would have happened to Australia? 90% of your trade would have been cut off, the standard of life would have fallen dramatically and the guarantor of Australian security would have been rendered impotent. You only need to look at French colonies in SEA after it fell in 1940 to see what the Japanese would have done. If the Suez Canal had fallen too, the impact on Australia would have been dire with the increase in travelling times between Britain and Australia increasing. America certainly would not come to Australia's aid without British coaxing. On the arrival of R.G Casey as Australian Ambassador to the US in 1940, Roosevelt told him Australia was a very long way away and not a direct American interest. That's not mentioning the trade war you initiated in the 30s against the Yanks either. Australia was asked to bolster the outer defences of the Antipodean Dominions by sending forces to Malaya, which it did in the form of the 8th Division. At secret talks in early '41 also Britain urged the US if it were to come into war to take up responsibility for war in the Far East but the US instead (Admiral Harold Stark to be precise) urged the Atlantic First policy. Britain, in these talks, said of Singapore and Malaya that they were only second to Britain in Imperial defence because they protected Australia, India and New Zealand. Why consider the defensive lynchpin of Australia as only second to the defence of Britain if we were determined to throw you to the dogs?
As for the fall of Singapore itself, it wasn't a betrayal but more a gigantic cock up. The plan for the defence of Malaya was not put immediately into action for fear of provoking negative US feelings for it involved seizing Thai territory, something the Japanese did. Once it was put into action, it was too late and the Japanese outclassed both our nation's forces in the region. The failure of Force Z was a shock and was the first time that air power had truly trumped the Battleship in war. And if Churchill was determined to abandon Australia and Singapore, why issue a message ordering defence to the last man? And remember, it wasn't General Percival who deserted his command and fled back to his homeland unlike Bennett.
So please do not accuse me of being ignorant of your history when I'm well aware of it. The Great Betrayal Myth IS a myth which does not stand up to serious consideration.
And Oldnewshound on some of your points,
1. Yes it is for you to decide. I see nobody from Britain telling you to what to do otherwise, officially or unofficially. I merely offered a comment and suggestion.
2. I suggest you read "Munich to Vietnam: Australia's relations with Britain and the US since the 1930s" by Carl Bridge.
3. Then educate them on Australia's relationship with Britain.
4. Sounds like a good enough compromise.
On 11/11 , I was referring to the fact that it was Remembrance Sunday, which despite not being the 11th November has in recent years taken up the status as the more primary of the remembrance events...at least in Britain anyway.
Complain about this comment
If you are the AUSTRALIAN historian you claim to be, you would know that Curtin threatened to call back Aussie military to stand against the perceived Japanese invasion. Churchill, knowing he couldn't afford to loose the Aussies, after all they had been the canon fodder he used in WWI, promised Curtin he would not let Singapore fall to the Japanese. He and the British War cabined were convined Japan wouldn't want to take Australia as it was too large for them to defend once they took it. They were wrong.
Even Menzies, a close friend of Churchill, when PM after Curtin, made numerous and hazardous trips to England to plead the case for the return of Aussie troops.
Again, if you REALLY want to know of AUSTRALIAN history, and not a British version, go to:
http://ww2db.com/country.php?cid=9
And scroll down to the section on the 1930's and onwards.
If you're a serious historian, you would have checked the ABC archives of the investigative documentaries, made in the 1980's and onward, that showed the official British story of the defense of Australia, was a total fabrication.
Complain about this comment
#57: Dear Old Hermit...regarding your Point 3 above, relating to my Point 3 in a previous post...actually, the more you educate them about it, the less they understand it. Most of the nations to Australia's north fought vicious wars of liberation against their Colonial and Imperial masters...freedom obviously means a lot to them and they can not really comprehend how a nation like Australia would wish to be tied to its colonial past.
The same applies to the nations of Africa who were able to throw off their colonial chains...that's why it is more dificult to achieve the visions of Australia's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, which I referred to in my first post on this subject, without having a very clear view of our place in the world and an identity which clearly indicates Australia's abilty to speak on its own behalf.
I don't know about you, but I believe this world would be a better place if Australia's voice was heard clealy and strongly on such issues as fair play, honour, human rights, brotherhood - after all, we are the most polyglot nation in the word today.
There are 193 Members of the United Nations and Australia must be able to communicate with them in the clearest and most transparent way possible, as an independent Republic to have any chance of success of playing a leading role in reform of the United Nations.
What kind of person would I vote for to be my President.
Someone like Gareth Evans comes preety close, then again, it could be John Howard.
Anything is possible in the Republic.
The "betrayal"...Britain made far too many promises during the 1930s and Australia was stupid enough to believe them.
The concluding sentences of David Day's book which I mentioned are profound..."For Australia to enjoy more than a semblance of independence will require more than the constitutional change that a future republic might bring. Independence has to be exercised. And that requires the ability and strength to formulate policies based on a clear appreciation of Australian interests and being able, when necessary, to withstand pressure from great power allies that seek to impose their views. For too long, Australia has largely looked at the world through British and then American eyes. What has been good for London or Washington has not necessaily been good for Australia. That should have been starkly clear after the experience of 1942. There were lessons for Australia in the war. It is not too late to learn them".
The Republic of Australia is a step towards exercising our independence.
We wish to see the world through Australian eyes. And these are wise and ancient eyes - we have been here for 40,000 years.
Complain about this comment
#58 "after all they had been the canon fodder he used in WWI"
Pete, I suggest you visit the National War Memorial, then revisit this statement.
Complain about this comment
60 = To quote a well known Royalists 'Please explain?'
Complain about this comment
#57
I think an intrinsic issue in how these wars are documented, OldHermit, is that the Japanese in 1941 were underestimated in both London and Washington, unlike by Curtin - and Menzies by 1941 - and the US Navy which had long expected to fight a war against Japan in the Pacific. Japan had already been at war in China which is where WW2 began
Churchill undermined the Pacific War, to focus on Europe. He did so at a time when the defences of Australia were depleted in service of the defence of Britain, contrary to the 'Britain stood alone' mantra
He then detoured the returning 7th Division to Burma, against Curtin's orders, to defend India
Australia's links with Britain actually undermined its capacity for self defence.
Hence Curtin's plea to FDR in December 1941. The US had no obligation to Australia, nor Australians, they simply required a base
It's the US which was Australia's ally in WW2
Complain about this comment
60=There are numerous sites that tell of how Australians were used by the Brits in wars, as a distraction, and were often sacrificed.
This one for starters:
"Sir Blamey was a great Australian leader who prided himself on standing up to the British when he believed his troops were being treated unfairly. He was ordered by the (Australian) government to prevent any part of his Australian forces being separated to serve under British command. The government was determined not to allow Australians to be sacrificed as they had been in World War One. He was strong and stood up to Churchill and also the American commander, MacArthur, who wanted to keep the Australian troops fighting the Japanese.
"…Blamey refused ‘Jumbo’ Wilson’s order to detach an Australian brigade from his force...Blamey stood firm and it was Churchill who backed down."
Len Deighton – ‘Blood, Tears and Folly: In the Darkest Hours of the Second World War.’ Pg 264
Blamey did not trust his troops under British command. Blamey had felt tricked into sending his troops to Greece, which had proved fruitless. The British had told him the Anzacs would make up for a third of the expedition when in fact they made up over half the group.
"Past experience has taught me to look with misgiving on a situation where British leaders have control of considerable bodies of first-class Dominion troops, while Dominion commanders are excluded from all responsibilities in control, planning."
General Blamey, 9th March – ‘Blood, Tears and Folly: In the Darkest Hours of the Second World War’. Pg 264 "
http://www.sandgate.net/~pdunn/ozatwar/blamey.htm
One wonders, if we were a separate and independent country after 1901, how Britain was so easily able to bully Australian...and New Zealand...not only in WWI, but in WWII, as made clear in this report, and many other similar reports, histories, and official documents, now released under various 'freedom of information' acts.
Australians were fooled into believing they were an independent nation, yet would still be supported by the Empire in time of need. It was the carnage of WWI that started to separate the Royalist from the Republicans in many debates around Australia. By WWII's end, the Republic cry began to expand. Small pockets of pro Royalists could see their demise. Then came the news of the Crowning of QEII, the very strong pro British PM Menzies, and the flood of British migrants to Australia in the early 50's. The Republic was pretty much doomed.
In any other country, both Menzies and Howard would have been charged with treason for selling out our country to another. But that didn't, can't, and won't happen while we have a British monarch as our head of state.
Australia for Australians, by Australians.
Complain about this comment
62=Ah Wollemi your history is as true as your namesake pine. Old and historic. Well said.
Complain about this comment
Any body else get the impression 11pete11, Wollemi, Wjburt and oldnewshound are the same person posting numerous times. Or, if not the same person, all belong to the same ultra right-wing, racist, nationalist party?
Complain about this comment
#65
smartlondon
In Australia we attack the subject, not abuse the person
If you are incapable of doing the same in future, I'll be placing you in my 'ignore' category
OldHermit
Just one more thing.....Bennett was the subject of both an Army Inquiry and Royal Commission here for his actions at Singapore. Not to mention the court of public opinion
No one - repeat noone - in the British chain of command suffered similar for the bigger debacle that Singapore represents That there was never an inquiry was because it would have gone too high in the British High Command and the War Cabinet
Complain about this comment
65 SmartLondon haha, you're not very smart. I usually get called a 'leftist liberal', I have never been called a right wing, racist nationalist before. As to 11pete11, Wollemi, Wjburt and oldnewshound all being the same person, we're not, but you probably won't believe me any more than you'll believe anything the four of us post.
But I have to agree with wollemi 66 re attacking the subject not the person. It takes intelligence, research, memory, and interest in the subject to be an informed poster. It takes nothing at all to name call. If there is anything I or the others have posted that is incorrect, might I humbly suggest you post your contrary information.
In a posting above oldnewshound and I referred to our postings on another topic where we very strongly disagree. But that doesn't make us 'left' or 'right' just informed and with strong convictions in our particular points of view. Please get yourself informed and join us in debate and discussion.
Complain about this comment
I apologise 11pete11. You're clearly not nationalistic or at all xenophobic. As to your suggestion about posting contrary opinions, I would, but whether or not Australia ditches the queen is quite possibly the subject in the world I have the least interest in.
Complain about this comment
#68:smartlondon: Well that clears things up...obviously 11pete11, wollemi and I are different people...and I believe if you check my posts as well you will find nothing racist or right wing.
Actually I am a bit of a lefty and as for racism...well Pete's note on "another topic where we very strongly disagree" refers to my desire for Australia's population to be greatly expanded with an accelerated influx of immigrants...I actually did mean from EVERYWHERE...ALSO...I mentioned in my previous post that because Australia is now the most polyglot nation in the world we have some right to speak on issues such as human brotherhood.
As well, by saying "we have been here for 40,000 years" I was paying tribute to my Australian aboriginal brothers and sisters and their deep understanding of the "spirit of place" of this old and weathered continent.
As for nationalism, apart from also believing it is "the last refuge of the scoundrel" it is so 19th century...we must in this new century work together as humanity, united, to overcome the many pressing problems that we all face, collectively...problems such as Global Warming, Nuclear Proliferation and the increasing likelihood of global pandemics such as Bird and Swine Flu and God knows what will be next be spawned.
Perhaps as a final post on this particular topic I would also like to pay tribute to Nick and the BBC for a series of interesting and thought provoking blogs and subjects such as this debate on the Republic of Australia.
I believe it gets back to a concept of democracy and free speech which both Britain and Australia share..."I disagree completely with what you say but I will lay down my life for your right to say it".
This is the spirit in which our two peoples face the vagaries of this new century.
Republicans like myself have no animosity towards Britain or that delightful and majestic woman who is your sovereign...we would be very happy to stand together and with all our hearts sing "God save YOUR gracious Queen, Long live YOUR noble Queen, Long may she reign over YOU, god save YOUR Queen".
Bring on the Republic of Australia.
Complain about this comment
Pete #63, with respect your example does not back up your assertion.
I am fully aware of the disproportionate sacrifices that were made by ANZAC soldiers, especially in WWI where, looking back, the places that they were fighting look so irrelevant to Australia now. I really can recommend a day spent in Canberra to bring that home - the war memorial just provides fact after horrific fact, all of which have a chilling effect. It doesn't however say that Australian soldiers were maliciously employed as 'cannon fodder' (of course it does provide many examples of the pointless and dubious tactics employed by many commanders of the time).
All of which doesn't have much relevance to the topic. Apologies there...
Complain about this comment
70=PaulCrossleyiii I don't think there is a generational Aussie that HASN'T spent some time, at least one visit, to the war memorial. It is part of most schoo's cariculum. I was privileged to have been able to sit in the cockpit of G for George, many years ago. Recently I visited the Vietnam section and was seriously emotionally effected.
But you are right when you say 'All of which doesn't have much relevance to the topic' so I'll just suggest those interested visit the web pages I have suggested, or the read the books other posters have recommended or quoted from. Remember Australia's history is only correct till the next 'freedom of information' list presents material to the contrary, and that is happening constantly, thought not necessarily publically...via the media I mean.
Complain about this comment
Pete, you're a lucky man (the G for George thing). Unfortunately I've finding plenty of generational Aussies who have never been to Canberra (and think I'm crazy for making that trip!).
Complain about this comment
btw, I wasn't accusing you of de-railing the topic - rather myself for perpetuating it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I am wondering if I may have a beef with the BBC concerning its use of house rules.
Further up this list of posts I gave links to examples of my point of view to which: 70 paulcrossleyiii wrote: "Pete #63, with respect your example does not back up your assertion."
I then posted a link with content from that link responding to Paul's request and my "comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules."
One of the house rules is not to be argumentative. Isn't therefore paulcrossley deliberately baiting...argumentative...and therefore shouldn't he have his comments removed.
This is not a beef with Paul, but with the way the house rules are being applied by the monitor. I believe too agressively.
This is not the first time I have had a similar situation with the same writer. Is Paul a member of staff? Should I be ignoring all of Paul's comments? I don't know.
For what its worth, from now on, I will reply to ALL requests for proof of my comments by saying an answer to such requests may cause me to have my comments removed. I suggest therefore that such persons requesting such information start using Google or Yahoo and find out for themselves.
And by the way BBC, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to which particular rule I broke...I am assuming it was copywrite.
So Paul, this is the reason I an others can't answer your queries. Time for you to either complain to the BBC for them stopping you getting the information we offer, or go look for yourself.
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
Pete, I can assure I don't work for Auntie, I haven't even paid Nick's wages these last two years. I agree with you that if a moderator has gone to the trouble to remove your posts, they could at least send an email saying which rule you broke (and maybe even whether the removal was recommended by another poster).
I stand by my earlier statement though. I would have thought that visiting the ANWM was a pretty good starting point in 'looking for myself' with respect to this subject.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS