Australian republicanism

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Australia's Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has pulled off something of a coup by getting the Queen to agree to his suggested appointment of Quentin Bryce as Governor-General. Bryce herself, apparently, is also a republican, making her a somewhat interesting choice to act as the Queen's official representative in the country.

Crucially, of course, the Governor-General has the devolved power to give final assent to bills passed through Australia's parliament. While the likelihood of the Monarch refusing Royal Assent to any legislation passed by Parliament is probably as remote there as it is in the UK (a constitutional premise that formed the backdrop to Michael Dobbs' To Play the King ), nonetheless having a republican in place to give assent to your legislation might be seen as a bit of a giveaway as to "direction of travel".

Australia held a referendum on this matter in 1999 which was defeated about 55-45, but apologists for the defeat suggested that the "no" vote included many voting not against republicanism itself, but against the alternative being offered, that an Australian Head of State would be chosen by Parliament. This lead to fears of a controlling party at any given time gaining too much power. The view was that if the option had been a Head of State directly elected by the public, with a fixed term that was longer than Parliament's, it would open up the role to "non-politicals" and retain the balance of power that, in principle at least, the constitutional monarchy preserves.

Rudd has said that a press for a republic is not on his agenda at present, but it will be interesting to watch that space. I wonder what they'd do with the flag? Presumably the repuiblicans would want the union flag taken off it?

[Stumpy Pepys]

Australian republicanism

While the likelihood of the Monarch refusing Royal Assent to any legislation passed by Parliament is probably as remote there as it is in the UK

Apart from Gough Whitlam in 1975.

[beak]

Australian republicanism

who would name a female human being quentin?

[Eggchaser]

Australian republicanism

This is Australia. They have men with first names like Berrick.

[ursus arctos]

Australian republicanism

And as for the flag:

[Guest]

Australian republicanism

[b] I wonder what they'd do with the flag? Presumably the republicans would want the union flag taken off it?[/quote]
Australia will become a republic as soon as the Queen snuffs it.

What will be really interesting is what happens to the flag when Scotland becomes independent and that stain in the corner becomes irrelevant.

[NHH]

Australian republicanism

I'll bet you Oz will be a republic before Scotland is independent.

[Rory Bunk]

Australian republicanism

Rogin the Armchair Fan wrote:

Australia held a referendum on this matter in 1999 which was defeated about 55-45, but apologists for the defeat suggested that the "no" vote included many voting not against republicanism itself, but against the alternative being offered, that an Australian Head of State would be chosen by Parliament.

That's pretty much it. A republic was an important agenda item in Paul Keating's government which resulted in the Australian Constitutional Convention, a talkfest on the topic of Australia's constitution and head of state. Said talkfest happened early in the tenure of new PM, one John Howard, who only had to use only a fraction of his cuntishness and wedging powers to easily do a spoiling job. He did this by, as Rogin says, ensuring that the referendum question was on a specific model, rather than on whether Australia should have its own head of state. Had the referendum question been "Should Australia have it own head of state", I would have thought that around 60% would have voted Yes which would have likely been enough to cover the requirement of a majority of votes in a majority of states.

Instead, the talkfest did the usual meandering, breast-beating and token gestures before some bullying came up with the eventual model - one which most sane people agree is the right one. The model which came out of this was specifically referenced in the question.

This lead to fears of a controlling party at any given time gaining too much power. The view was that if the option had been a Head of State directly elected by the public, with a fixed term that was longer than Parliament's, it would open up the role to "non-politicals" and retain the balance of power that, in principle at least, the constitutional monarchy preserves.

This was a ridiculous argument, but was enough to defeat the movement. The model in the referendum required a head of state to receive a two-thirds majority vote across both houses of parliament, which could only ever happen by consent between the major parties - I doubt that any government has ever had these numbers in their own right. The head of state was to thus be a ceremonial post (mostly) with similar role to the current governor general such as opening things, giving speeches, representing the country at various dos and never being involved in policy. As was pointed out above, Sir John Kerr did indeed sack Gough Whitlam but this was only possible because the Liberal party had blocked supply in the senate and were determined to continue doing so. It also needs to be pointed out that Governors General are currently appointed in exactly the same manner.

Had a directly-elected president model been adopted, which preponents argue would mean taking a decision away from politicians and thus removing it from politics, the exact opposite would have likely evolved - a directly elected president with reserve powers would consider themselves to have the mandate to be more involved in the running of the country. After all, they could claim to be elected by the whole country while the PM would 'only' be elected by his constituents into parliament and by his own government's MPs into the Prime-Ministership. So this model would likely lead to an evolution towards a more powerful and political head of state.

Anyway, fast-forward to today and the interesting prospect, along the lines that electorates tend to be more accepting of radical ideas from supposedly conservative parties, is that the very high-profile head of the Australian Republican Movement at the aforementioned Constitutional Convention was ex-merchant banker, lawyer and all-round go-getter Malcolm Turnbull. He is now deputy leader of the opposition and viewed by most of the gallery as the leader in waiting. The conservative elements of the party don't like him and he doesn't like them, but with him as either leader of the government or opposition, it would be likely that the issue would be allowed to properly breathe again. Turnbull is an arrogant bastard, but he's much better than his party and for things like these which require a bit of vision and ideology, I would think he's a better bet than Rudd the bureaucrat.

I'd think that when Lizzie snuffs it or has her fingers prised from the throne, there will likely be impetus for a movement which will result in us becoming a republic, so that your cricket fans can stop rightly taunting us by singing "God save YOUR glorious Queen" at us." You bastards. It's easily the best and most hurtful chant I've heard and all without swearing or being crude.

[tee rex]

Australian republicanism

In New Zealand the leaders of the two main parties both say becoming a republic is "inevitable". Polls suggest a majority supports it. So of course nothing will be done for years.

Like the Aussies, we're waiting for the Queen to die. Basing a democracy's constitution on improvements in geriatric health care would seem about as logical as "some bint lying around in ponds distributing armaments", but there you go.