This service is no longer live but has been archived for information purposes only. Click here for more info.
 
Issue

Australian republic debate

As it currently stands, there is no way that you or any other Australian could ever aspire to be Australia’s head of state. But do you really care? Republicans definitely do, and that is why they are fighting for an Australian president to replace the Queen.

Submitted 5/2/2006 By Jules Views 136046 Comments 26 Updated 10/20/2008


Photographer : barixz

What’s the issue?

Right now, Australia has a system of government called a constitutional monarchy. This means that the Queen is technically the head of state, but we have our own constitution which limits her power to a minimal and ceremonial role. Within Australia, the Queen is represented by the governor general, who is appointed by the prime minister.

Those in favour of a Republican system of government want to see an Australian president as the official head of state. In other words, a president would replace the governor general and we would be rid of the Queen altogether. The Republican debate asks the question: do we need to change our system of government to properly reflect our independence as a nation?

With the former head of the Australian Republican Movement, Malcolm Turnbull, recently selected as the head of the Federal Opposition Party – it might be time to brush up on the debate that could change the face of Australia.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it: arguments against an Australian republic

Monarchists (from the word monarchy) believe that our system of government is working well and should remain exactly the same. They think that becoming a republic is one of the worst things we could do to Australia for the following reasons:

  • Electing or appointing an Australian as head of state, instead of appointing a governor-general, does not change the role. Giving power to a president instead of a governor-general has no proven benefits for the lives of average Australians.
  • Our relationship with England is an important part of Australia’s heritage and we should not cut all ties with our history. Many Australians still feel that Britain is part of their identity.
  • Becoming a republic will be a waste of Australian tax payer money. We will need to change our currency and stationary, hold a referendum etc. This does not justify the end result, which will be a similar form of government. On top of that, there are other issues which are in more urgent need of funding and debate.
  • Australia’s current system of government combines all the advantages of a constitutional monarchy with a full measure of independence and democratic freedom.

To read more about the arguments against an Australian republic visit the Australians for a Constitution Monarchy (ACM) website.

It’s time for a change: arguments for an Australian republic

Republicans want to change our government because:

  • In the past, Australians may have felt united under a British monarch. But today, Australia is a culturally diverse country which embraces its Indigenous heritage and welcomes immigrants from around the world. The Queen of England no longer represents the average Australian.
  • There are many benefits to business and the economy. International trade is becoming increasingly competitive and the way Australia positions itself as a nation is important. When the Queen travels overseas she promotes British companies and British trade, not Australian interests.
  • The head of state should be a position that is awarded based on merit, not on birthright. Every Australian child should be able to dream of attaining the highest office in their country.
  • The monarchy is not an appropriate symbol for an egalitarian and independent nation. The next natural step in the evolution of Australia’s democracy is to become a republic.

To read more about the arguments in favour of becoming an Australian republic visit the Australian Republican Movement’s (ARM) website.

Republic Mythbusters

  • Yes, we will still be part of the Commonwealth and compete in the Commonwealth Games
  • No, we don’t have to change our flag
  • Yes, we will eventually have to change all the coins with the Queen’s face on them
  • No, our president will not be like the one in America – the prime-minister will still be the main political leader of Australia

Eeenie, meenie minie mo: how would we choose a president?

Many people argue that the main reason that we have not been able to vote ‘yes’ to a republic, is because those in favour have very different views on what kind of republic Australia should have. There are lots of different options for choosing a head of state, and each method has pros and cons.

There are six main models and these are listed on the Australian Republican Movement website. At one extreme we could have the prime minister choose and appoint the president. On the other end of the spectrum there is the proposal that all Australians should vote for the president (even though it is not supposed to be a political position).

The 1999 referendum

On 6 November 1999 a referendum was held to see if Australian citizens wanted Australia to become a republic. A referendum is a special election to see if the country wants to change something in the constitution. For a referendum to be successful, both a majority of people and a majority of states have to say ‘yes’.

This referendum asked the country to decide whether they wanted a republic where the president was elected by a two thirds majority in parliament. 46% of Australian voters voted ‘yes’, while 54% voted ’no’ – which meant that the changes did not pass.

Many republicans, including Malcolm Turnbull, blamed John Howard for the failure of the referendum. Howard, who was prime minister of Australia at the time, publicly expressed his intention to vote ‘no’ in the referendum. A lot of pro-republic voters also voted ‘no’ because they felt that the method proposed for electing a president was undemocratic.

What's next?

Although the issue seems to be temporarily off the table, with Malcolm Turnbull tipped as the next prime minister, it is possible that there will be another referendum in our generation. This is one issue which might change the future of the country you live in.

This page was upated by kate elise

How I know this?

Australian Council of Trade Unions, Why Australia should become a republic, http://www.actu.asn.au/public/news/1064886459_1696.html  
Australian Monarchists League, http://www.monarchist.org.au  

Australian Republic Movement, http://www.republic.org.au  

Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, http://www.norepublic.com.au  

‘John Howard’s statement in support of the ‘no’ case’, October 25 1999, http://australianpolitics.com/issues/republic/howard-statement.shtml  

‘Peter Costello’s statement in support of the ‘yes’ case’, October 27 1999 http://australianpolitics.com/issues/republic/costello-statement.shtml  

Discuss Now

Post Comment 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |

RSS Comments
image

cdavi456 07-May-2011

I didn't actually know we were giving the royal family millions of dollars a year. I agree with bonnie1 we could be putting that money towards better use!



-----

image

Wanton 07-Feb-2011

Crown land costs.

To my mind there are two types of Crown Land. The first and perhaps the most common are land that is owned by the Government of Australia and under the control (ownership) of the States. These would include military establishments, land on which government building are located, national parks and other public land. It is common for governments to pay 'ex-gratia' rates to the local council in respect of crown land that generates much traffic, or they may contribute toward road and footpath repairs. The term ex gratia means what it says, ie there is no compulsion by the owner of the land to make such payments. Instead of payment of rates the public may also be given free access to crown land, or access at a nominal fee only.

The second may be actually used by the monarchy. For example they may have farmland or even housing estates they manage and derive income from. It is possible for the monarch not to make payment of any tax or land rates in respect of such land.

So does it cost us for the monarchy to hold land in our country of Australia. Indeed it may, but that is something that will need to be investigated. eg. Does the monarchy pay any taxes on income derived from the use of crown land? I hazard the guess that it does not.

So what if we become a Republic. What will happen to ownership of Crown land. By it's definition it surely must become Commonwealth Land. If the Monarch own crown land that is used for commercial purposes than they would become liable for the normal rates and taxes the is generated by such commercial ventures, just like you and I are.

So should the question of Crown land ownership hinder our quest for our country to become of Republic? The answer clearly must be emphatically, No!

There is nothing that the British Royal family, as a group of individuals that entitles them to become our monarch just because they are born into the British Royal Family. They each of them must eat and drink and do their daily duty just like the rest of us. Our children have as much more right to aspire to become our country's "figure head" than any member of the British Royal Family, because they are born here.

-----

image

thinker1 15-Jul-2010

Before anyone decides whether or not Australia should become a republic know these often unknown or mistaken facts:

1. Australia gained independence from Britain when the colonies federated in 1901. So the debate isn't about independence and we didn't have to have a war over it - something to be proud of.

2. The Queen is not Australia's Head of State, she is the Sovereign. The Governor General is the Head of State. This was confirmed in the Australian High Court judgement of 1907 entitled "The King v The Governor of the State of South Australia"
Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1907/31.html

3. No money from Australia goes to the Queen or the Royal family - no tax payers dollars at all. Currently the Royal family fund themselves mostly from the property they own and get a sum of £38.2 million a year from the British Government called 'The Civil List' which funds their state duties. The UK tax payers cover this which amounts to only 62 pence per person per year.
Source: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3042596/...

4. There has not been a King or Queen of England since 1707. The title of the Monarch is King or Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and in our case, Queen of Australia. People who call her "The Queen of England" are mistaken. She is also the Queen of Canada, Queen of New Zealand, etc.
Source: http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/qu...

5. The Australian system of government with the Sovereign, Governor General, Prime Minister, Government, Opposition and the individual State Governors, Premiers, State Governments and Oppositions mean that every aspect of government is subjected to checks and balances that limits power and its subsequent misuse. This system has made Australia one of the most stable and free countries in the world.

We pay nothing and get a Constitutional Monarch for free. Why get rid of that?

-----

image

SnideryMark 22-Jun-2010

@jamesB8
If the UK (or any other country larger than Tassie, for that matter) wanted to invade us, they could do so at 5.30am on a Sunday morning with a wet newspaper and a handful of gravel.



-----

image

SnideryMark 22-Jun-2010

Any republican care to answer this one simple question, please?
If Australia became a Republic, what happens to Crown land? Will become a debt to the Australian people? You could guarantee that the queen (or prince william when the time comes) wont just GIVE Australia the land the Crown owns! We would have to change all title deeds and the Land Titles Act. As it stands, as long as we are in the Queen's good books, she wont call markers - but as soon as we declare we want a republic, I think you'll find that the tone will change.

There are a few issues that haven't even been mentioned, its not as simple as a mere referendum (which was convincingly defeated before). It's a dead topic as far as I can tell. However, I am open to logical debate on the Crown land issue. ANy takers?

-----