The
1999 Referendum
Websites
on Monarchy and Republic
24
March 1999: Prime Minister's Draft Preamble
25-28
March 1999: the Big Ho Hum
13-15
April 1999: Premiers Oppose
15
April 1999: O'Donoghue and Brennan
22
April 1999: the Two Preambles Problem
29
April 1999: Opposition Parties' Alternative
3
June 1999: Draft Declaration for Reconciliation
The
Campaign
6
November 1999: the Big Thumbs Down
Royal
Visit
All content of this page has been prepared by Iain Stewart. Links
to news sources are provided where possible but may go out of date quickly.
Most material on the iss of monarchy or republic can be found at the websites
below. This page makes an effort to record the texts of proposed
new preambles and the views expressed about them.
The Commonwealth Government, through the Department of the Prime Minister
and Cabinet, established a bare-bones website on the whole referendum -
http://www.referendum99.gov.au - but has discontinued it. .
24 March 1999:
Prime Minister's Draft Preamble {Back
to top of page}
This is the draft Preamble written by Prime Minister John Howard with the
assistance of poet Les Murray, together with other contributions, including
historian Geoffrey Blainey and some changes made when the draft was presented
to Cabinet and then to the Liberal Party caucus. The draft was published
in the press on 24 March 1999:
-
With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is
constituted by the equal sovereignty of all its citizens.
-
The Australian nation is woven together of people
from many ancestries and arrivals.
-
Our vast island continent has helped to shape the
destiny of our Commonwealth and the spirit of its people.
-
Since time immemorial our land has been inhabited
by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, who are honoured for their ancient
and continuing cultures.
-
In every generation immigrants have brought great
enrichment to our nation's life.
-
Australians are free to be proud of their country
and heritage, free to realise themselves as individuals, and free to pursue
their hopes and ideals.
-
We value excellence as well as fairness, independence
as dearly as mateship.
-
Australia's democratic and federal system of government
exists under law to preserve and protect all Australians in an equal dignity
which may never be infringed by prejudice or fashion or ideology nor invoked
against achievement.
-
In this spirit we, the Australian people, commit
ourselves to this Constitution.
The draft was not well received. Both The Australian and the
Sydney
Morning Herald accompanied it with stories reporting or expressing
rejection of it as lacking in style, as betraying the Convention's recommendation
that the Preamble recognise Aboriginal 'custodianship' of the land, as
insulting women with the reference to 'mateship' and as conceivably designed
to derail the reform process. The SMH added a spoof by Tim
Ferguson, which commenced: 'WE, the People of the broad, brown land
of Oz, wish to be recognised as a free nation of blokes, sheilas and the
occasional trannie' and went studiously downhill from there. Labor
and the Democrats strongly opposed the draft, Labor demanding that the
task be undertaken by a joint Parliamentary Committee with input from members
of the 1998 Convention. Already by 9 am AAP reported Howard as responding
that 'compelling matters of substance may be incorporated' if desired by
'the public' rather than 'self-appointed critics', although he stood by
the word 'mateship' as distinctively Australian and inclusive.
Labor had already released its own draft, by constitutional lawyer Gareth
Evans:
Having come together in 1901 as a Federation
under the Crown,
relying on the blessing of Almighty God, and
The Commonwealth of Australia being now a sovereign
democracy,
our united people drawn from nations across the
globe,
We the people of Australia
Proud of our diversity
Loving our unique and ancient land
Recognising indigenous Australians as the original
occupants and custodians of our land
Believing in freedom and equality, and
Embracing democracy and the rule of law
Commit ourselves to this our Constitution.
Evans commented, comparing the two: 'Our new preamble needs to be
short and taut; to be learnable and quotable; and to touch
the chords that matter - the basic ideas that are at the heart of the kind
of country we want to be and which cry out for expression. Style
does matter. Any constitution is, in a sense, its country's autobiography.
With any such work it helps if the first few lines are compelling and captivating.
Unhappily, the Prime Minister's draft falls short on all counts'
('Windy Prologue Strikes Chord but it's Out of Tune', The Australian
24 March 1999). Evans loyally attributed this draft to his party
leader, Kim Beazley, who however has not claimed it.
A generally negative response to the draft continued in the press of 25
March and, with diminishing intensity, over the next fortnight.
Michelle Grattan, chief political correspondent of the Sydney Morning
Herald, analysed the timetable for agreement on a preamble text
in time for it to be put to referendum along with the head of state question
on 1 November and found the timetable so tight that the Prime Minister
would have to compromise or abandon the attempt at a preamble for the foreseeable
future. The stakes, in her view, had been set very high: 'The
preamble aims to assert national values. Its birth is now becoming a test
of our national political process. If it is aborted, because there is not
sufficient goodwill to get a compromise, or stillborn at the referendum,
that will be an indictment of Howard, Beazley and Australia.' ('The
Big Preamble Gamble', Sydney Morning Herald 26 March 1999).
The Australian published on 27 March a set of alternatives, some
serious and some otherwise, by various hands, including Thomas Keneally
and Jocelyn Scutt. It has invited suggestions
from readers and continues to publish them on the net.
In a Newspoll national telephone survey on 25-28 March, published in
The
Australian on 5 April:
-
57% said they were aware of the draft Preamble,
-
44% that they had read at least some of it,
-
22% that they approved of it either completely (7%) or with reservations
(15%), and
-
17% that they disapproved of it.
The Sunday Telegraph reported on 28 March: 'The Federal
Sex Discrimination office has been inundated with complaints from women
about Prime Minister John Howard's draft preamble for the Constitution.'
Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Susan Halliday had received so
many complaints about the use of 'mateship' that, responding to the Prime
Minister's public invitation for comment, she would be composing an alternative.
('PM's
Preamble Wins Few Friends', Sunday Telegraph 28 March 1999).
Commissioner Halliday was appointed by the Howard government .
Most State Premiers - of New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria
- want substantial changes to the Prime Minister's draft preamble.
The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory also wants changes, while
the Chief Minster of the Australian Capital Territory thinks the preamble
question is a waste of time in comparison witn the republic issue. ('Premiers
Doom PM's Preamble', The Australian 13 April 1999.)
On 14 April the Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, published his own
draft.
We commit ourselves to the Commonwealth
of Australia as a sovereignty founded on the values of equality and dignity.
We hold inviolable the rights of a free people
- to speak freely and make our own choices in the pursuit of knowledge,
opportunity and fulfilment.
Australia's distinctive identity and lifestyle
are to be prized and cherished.
We celebrate difference, and are united by the
heritage of a harmonious indigenous and international culture, and the
custodianship of this ancient, fragile land.
The future is our frontier and our destinty is
to claim Australia's place in the world.
Our democracy is vested in every individual and
confers the protection of the rule of law; and government serves
the common good.
In this spirit the Constitution defines Australia's
charter for all generations.
Reactions to the Kennett draft were similar to those to the Prime Minister's,
plus the voicing of a suspicion that Kennett was once again challenging
his federal rival, in hope of moving to Canberra either as Prime Minister
or as President ('A
Challenge by Any Other Name', The Australian 15 April 1999).
Les Murray commented obscurely: 'He had the advantage of writing
it all by himself' (Sydney Morning Herald 15 April 1999).
Prime Minister John Howard responded to the Kennett draft that it did not
set his pulse racing (The Australian 16 April 1999).
Dr Lowitjah O'Donoghue, former head
of ATSIC, said the day before being invested with the Order of Australia
that the Prime Minister's preamble draft was 'pathetic' and the reconciliation
movement had stalled ('Preamble Pathetic: O'Donoghue', Sydney
Morning Herald 16 April 1999).
Frank Brennan, Jesuit priest and
Indigenous rights activist, the same day told an Adelaide University graduation
ceremony that the Prime Minister's 'hope in God' was inappropriate for
the 16.8% of Australians who deny belief in God and preferably there should
be no reference to God. But, at this stage of the ganme, he would
agree to a preamble that included both God and Aborignal custodianship
('Swap God
for Land Rights', The Advertiser (South Australia) 16 April
1999).
Constitutional experts Mark McKenna and George Winterton point out that,
since the preamble proposed by the Prime Minister is to go at the head
of the Constitution but the earlier parts of the Constitution Act will
remain untouched, there will be two preambles: the preamble
to the Act and the preamble to the Constitution. They find this absurd,
both in principle and as to the content - for example, 'Western Australia
will remain the only State not mentioned as having agreed to federation'.
They suggest, interpreting an ambiguous recommendation of the Constitutional
Convention: 'bring the existing preamble [to the Act] over into the
Constittuion
proper and place it in slightly amended form at the beginning of the new
preamble. Then insert a provision in the referendum bill which authorises
parliament to repeal the obsolete covering clauses'. They also point
out that the Prime Minister's preamble proposal contains no provision,
should the republic proposal be approved, for amending the existing preamble
with its reference to the Crown of the United Kingdom. Further, they
object, 'A preamble that declared all the things we believed but prevented
the courts from drawing on them is a grand exercise in window dressing'.
(Mark McKenna and George Winterton, 'Two Preambles is Stretching the Mateship',
The
Australian 22 April 1999.)
29 April 1999:
Opposition Parties' Alternative {Back
to top of page}
The federal opposition parties - the Australian Labor Party, the Australian
Democrats and the Greens - have produced an agreed alternative preamble.
After 1 July, when they will control the Senate, they will be able to make
it very difficult for the Prime Minister to get his own preamble on the
statute book in time for the proposed November referendum. Discusssions
had been initiated by the ALP and the agreed text is very similar to the
ALP text proposed by Gareth Evans. The deadline for responses to
the Prime Minister's version passed on 30 April; the opposition parties
have set up an e-mail address for responses to their version: preambleconsult@aph.gov.au.
Having come together in 1901, relying
on God, as a Federation under the Crown
And the Commonwealth of Australia being now a
sovereign democracy, our people drawn from many nations
We the people of Australia
Proud of our diversity
Celebrating our unity
Loving our unique and ancient land
Recognising Indigenous Australians as the original
occupants and custodians of our land
Believing in freedom and equality, and
Embracing democracy and the rule of law
Commit ourselves to this our Constitution.
('Opposition
Mateship Puts PM's Preamble in Doubt', The Australian 29 April
1999; 'Senate Ready to Upstage the PM's Preamble' Sydney Morning
Herald 29 April 1999.) The Prime Minister responded that, while
he was 'willing to look at changes' in his own text and did not personally
object to 'custodianship', the concept would alienate people who worried
that it went 'too far' (The Australian 30 April 1999).
3 June 1999:
Draft Declaration for Reconciliation {Back
to top of page}
On 3 June the Governor-General accepted on behalf of the nation a draft
Declaration for Aboriginal Reconciliation from the Council for Aboriginal
Reconciliation. The draft was also supported in a bipartisan resolution
of the Commonwealth Parliament, although the Prime Minister indicated that
he did not fully agree with the text. See, further, Reconciliation
Declaration Draft.
In the weeks before the vote, an Official Referendum Pamphlet
was distributed by the Australian Electoral Commission to every household
in the country. It contained the text of the proposed preamble and
of the proposed amendments, as well as the text of the Commonwealth Constitution
showing the effects of these changes. The government also put out air and
print advertising.
The pamphlet also presented cases for voting 'yes' and
for voting 'no' to the preamble and the amendments, prepared by parliamentary
supporters and opponents of the changes. These 'cases' broadly reflected
the arguments deployed in the campaign, which involved extensive advertising
both on air and in print, by supporters and opponents of the changes.
Both sides held rallies in the capital cities. The Australian Republic
Movement says that it spent $7m, mostly from the pockets of leader Malclom
Turnbull, and claims that Australians for Constitutional Monarchy
must have spent double that. Certainly the monarchists put out a
lot more air and print advertising. In the last weeks of the
campaign, Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy ceased to defend the
monarchy as such and joined forces with 'direct republicans' to advocate
a 'no' vote in the interest of obtaining a directly elected presidency
on some future occasion.
In the referendum held on 6 November 1999, the proposed preamble was rejected
in every State and Territory. Les Murray disowned it. The 'republic'
amendments were rejected in every State and Territory except the Australian
Capital Territory. The Prime Minister celebrated.
The voting figures, described by the Australian Electoral Commission
as 'final', were as follows:
1999 Referendum
Results
|
Republic |
Preamble |
| New South Wales |
No: 53.57 |
No: 57.86 |
| Queensland |
No: 62.56 |
No: 67.19 |
| South Australia |
No: 50.16 |
No: 57.54 |
| Tasmania |
No: 59.63 |
No: 64.33 |
| Victoria |
No: 56.43 |
No: 61.90 |
| Western Australia |
No: 58.52 |
No: 65.27 |
| Australian Capital Territory |
Yes: 63.27 |
No: 56.39 |
| Northern Territory |
No: 51.23 |
No: 61.48 |
|
|
|
| National |
No: 54.87 |
No: 60.66 |
|
|
|
| Votes counted (%) |
95.13 |
95.13 |
| Votes counted (total) |
11,785,000 |
11,785,000 |
These gross figures, when broken down by constituency, reveal that support
for the republic amendments correlated closely with income bracket and
with urban rather than rural residence. The general 'no' vote should
also be divided among monarchists and 'direct republicans'. The ACT's
'yes' to a republic was taken by many elsewhere as confirming their view
that ACT inhabitants are out of touch with 'the real Australia', but it
can also be read as reflecting the higher incomes in the ACT.
In April 1999 it was announced that
Queen and Prince Philip would visit Australia for one week some time during
the first half of 2000. They were last here in 1991 and were already
scheduled to visit in 2001. The Prime Minister denied that the timing
of the invitation had anything to do with the republic debate, but one
republican labelled the visit 'a monarchist marketing exercise'.
'Queen Elizabeth is not as popular as the other royals, mainly because
she is still alive,' said Mr Bill Todd, from Cobweb Antiques. The
timing indicates that the Queen will not attend during the 2000 Olympics.
(Sydney Morning Herald 9 April 1999: 'Royals
to Avoid Republic Debate' and ''Eight
Years On, Queen Welcomed'; The Australian 9 April 1999:
'Send
Her Victorious ... and After Referendum'.)
{Return
to Contents}
Last modified 14.2.00