Download PDF

Contents

Compiler's Introduction

The Recent Republic Debate-A Chronology

Endnotes

Index

Compiler's Introduction

The recent republic debate in Australia has been, and indeed still is, one

of the most interesting political debates for a very long time. It is a

profoundly serious debate concerning the nature of our society, its

constitutional, legal, political and social organisation. Nevertheless, it

is a debate with its fair share of amusing moments as well as intelligent

comment and thoughtful discussion.

The debate has been dominated by, but not limited to, politicians such as

former Prime Ministers Paul Keating, Malcolm Fraser, and Bob Hawke, and

Prime Minister John Howard. Former High Court Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs

and current High Court judge Michael Kirby have expressed their views as

have opera singer Joan Sutherland, RSL Victorian President Bruce Ruxton,

author Thomas Keneally, and Australia's wealthiest woman Janet Holmes a

Court. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles, too, have contributed. Even

English cricketer Ian Botham became involved when, in March 1992, while on

tour in Australia, he threatened to 'flatten' Mr Keating over comments he

had made supporting a republic.

This paper was not written to argue the case one way or another, to analyse

the issues for or against a republic, or to discuss the questions that have

arisen during the debate. It is a simple chronology of the public

statements of participants, starting with the swearing in as

Governor-General on February 16 1989 of Bill Hayden, (described in the

media at the time as being fiercely republican,) and finishing on March 1

1996, when 500 monarchists rallied outside Government House in NSW

protesting against plans to downgrade the role of the State's

Governor-General.

It's a measure of the volatility of the debate, that by October 1995, Mr

Hayden was warning that the Federal Government's plans for a republic had

'very serious pitfalls' which might threaten effective government, while Mr

Fraser, who in June 1991, opposed the republic on the grounds the debate

was divisive, had, by August, 1995, accepted that a republic was

'inevitable and right'.

This paper is intended as a background paper, setting out the most recent

statements and allowing the reader to see how the issue arose, changed and

developed. It is also intended as a companion piece to the other papers in

a forthcoming PRS Collection The Constitution Papers, subject collection

number 7.

If a reader wishes to follow what a particular person has said, there is an

index at the back of the paper which cross-references speakers and page

references.

Finally, this chronology is inevitably incomplete. If an explanation is

needed as to why this recent history has been set out in such detail, I can

only say that although I read the newspapers and watched the television

news at the time, it was not until I re-read the newspaper clippings and

other materials that I realised how quickly I had forgotten how far the

debate had moved.

The Recent Republic Debate - A Chronology

16 February 1989 Bill Hayden, described by the media as fiercely

republican, was sworn in as Governor-General of Australia.(1)

3 April 1991 At a Constitutional Centenary Conference in Sydney, Mr Justice

Pincus, a Federal Court judge, said:

that the year 2001 was an obvious date for Australia to become a

republic. He also stated that the basic reason why we should have

an indigenous head of state, who is either popularly elected or

elected by some method which gives him what might be described as

more obvious authority, is that the day will come, and we'd

perhaps got close to it in 1975, when the question of who is in

charge here became terribly important...;I think the position of

the Governor-General, in short, is a bit weak and it should be

clarified and defined and upgraded.(2)

5 April 1991 The Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, spoke at the Constitutional

Centenary Conference at Parliament House Sydney. At the press conference,

he said:

(Y)ou know my position on the question of a republic. It is

inevitable Australia will become a republic. It is a question of

when. I think it is something in which political parties have to

get a sense of the feeling of the community. It still would be

something which for a lot of people would be hurtful but for an

increasing number of the Australian population I think there is

probably a feeling that Australia should in all it's

constitutional and legal apparatus be seen to be and in fact be

totally independent. Now having said that I make two other

points. I think in fairness to Her Majesty that I should say that

she has been an ideal sort of head of this nation in the strictly

prescribed sense in which she does it. She doesn't seek to

intervene in the affairs of this country. She has a great

knowledge of this country. So therefore when I say that it's

inevitable that this country will become a republic it involves

no reflection upon the role that Her Majesty has played in her

constitutional role. The second thing is I think we shouldn't get

this question of a republic in the wrong sort of proportions. I

think it is something that will and should come to make

Australians absolutely understand that we are a completely

sovereign independent nation. But we shouldn't believe that it's

going to make any difference to the daily life of Australian

citizens...;It's something which will probably give them a

greater sense of an independent nationhood, well that's OK. It'll

come in due time. What's the right year? I don't know.(3)

7 April 1991 The leader of the National Party, Mr Tim Fischer, said on the

Sunday program, in relation to Prime Minister Hawke's comments, that

'The prospect of President Paul Keating would be an absolute

disaster for Australia resented by all Australians. I do not see

it as inevitable that Australia will become a republic and it's a

matter for the people and the people, especially in country

Australia, will reject that all the way.'

25 June 1991 A proposal prepared by the Federal Minister for Employment,

Education and Training, John Dawkins, was put to the ALP National

Conference.

This conference calls upon the Government to embark upon a public

education campaign, culminating in a referendum which would

effect reform of the Australian Constitution and other political

institutions to enable Australia to become an independent

Republic on 1 January 2001.

The resolution, proposed by Senator Chris Schacht, was passed unanimously.

25 June 1991The Leader of the Opposition, Dr John Hewson, commented on the

question of Australia becoming a republic in the year 2001.

It's just a diversion. Turning Australia into a republic won't do

anything for our foreign debt or our interest rates, it won't

create any jobs for Australians. It is just a diversion.(4)

26 June 1991 The Western Australian Premier, Dr Carmen Lawrence, supported

Australia becoming a republic.(5)

26 June 1991 A former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser and his Defence

Minister, Sir James Killen, opposed Australia becoming a republic on the

basis that the issue was divisive.(6)

26 June 1991 A former Liberal Senator, Neville Bonner, said that Australia

had been served well by the ties it had maintained with Britain.

And besides, if Australia became a republic we, the Aboriginal

people, would be no better off because the changes that are

needed to help us don't include republican status. I see no

point.(7)

26 June 1991 Dr Hewson said

(O)ur Party position on republicanism, is that we are opposed to

it. I mean, we believe in a constitutional monarchy, it has been

a central part of our platform, if you like, since the days of

Sir Robert Menzies. I know people are saying with the changing

nature of our economy, we are moving towards the circumstances

where people will want a republic, I don't believe that. I don't

think it is inevitable in Australia...; .What disturbs me is

that, the last resort I guess of the failed economic manager of

the failed Government, is to appeal to patriotism and nationalism

and it came out yesterday, as an issue, as diversion.(8)

27 June 1991 Prime Minister Hawke reiterated his view on the inevitability

of a republic and said '(n)ow just how quickly that happens I feel has got

to be a matter for the community to allow itself to express. That view of

mine is consistent with the resolution that's been adopted by the

Conference.'(9)

27 June 1991 The Opposition spokesman for Industrial Relations, John

Howard, commenting on the ALP National Conference proposal said:

I'm not in favour of it. I would not presently favour changing

Australia to a republic. I believe in the Westminster system of

government where you have a division between the head of State

and the head of Government. The present system has served us

well. We are for all practical purposes an independent

country...;and in some senses we have the best of both worlds.

Those people who don't particularly care for the royal link,

don't find their daily lives invaded with it. On the other hand,

there are millions of Australians who hold the association very

dear, and whilst others will disagree with them, what the Labor

Party is now embarking upon is a 10 year period of division and

the development of enmity and bitterness in the community over an

issue which, if it were left alone, would in the fullness of time

solve itself in a non-divisive manner.

27 June 1991 The Queensland RSL 75th Congress meeting in Mackay, voted

unanimously to oppose the proposal adopted by the ALP national conference

in Hobart. The RSL's vice president, Ray Devere said 'It's against

everything Australian servicemen and women have fought for.'(10)

28 June 1991 A Liberal backbencher in the South Australian Parliament, Bob

Such, said that he saw the establishment of an Australian constitutional

monarchy, as easier, legally and constitutionally, than declaring a

republic. Mr Such suggested that either of the Queen's two younger sons,

Prince Andrew or Prince Edward, would be ideal as resident monarch.(11)

28 June 1991 The Federal Management Committee of the National Party

reaffirmed the Party's long standing support for the constitutional

monarch. The committee agreed that the National Party should vigorously

oppose any referendum question aimed at turning Australia into a republic

or changing the existing Australian National Flag. The party's motto was

Honour to God, Loyalty to the Crown, Justice for All. 'Our policy

specifically supports loyalty to the Crown and Nation, pride in the

Australian National Anthem and God Save the Queen and respect for the

existing Australian National Flag.'(12)

4 July 1991 The Victorian President of the RSL, Bruce Ruxton, said the

decision of the ALP national conference to endorse a referendum on becoming

a republic was 'an obscenity'.(13)

7 July 1991 At the launch of the Australian Republican Movement by author,

Tom Keneally, the following declaration was issued.

We, as Australians, united in one indissoluble Commonwealth,

affirm our allegiance to the nation and people of Australia. We

assert that the freedom and unity of Australia must derive its

strength from the will of the people.

We believe that the harmonious development of the Australian

community demands that the allegiance of Australians must be

fixed wholly within and upon Australia and Australian

institutions.

We therefore propose as a great national goal for Australia:

THAT BY THE FIRST OF JANUARY, 2001-THE FIRST DAY OF THE

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY AND THE CENTENARY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF THE

FEDERATION-AUSTRALIA SHALL BECOME AN INDEPENDENT REPUBLIC.(14)

7 July 1991 A special task force was set up to fight for the preservation

of royal ties with Britain, headed by former Liberal Party President Sir

John Atwill. Its members included Federal Opposition Industrial Relations

spokesman John Howard.(15)

8 July 1991 Merchant banker and lawyer Malcolm Turnbull said that if the

Westminster political system were retained, a simple change to the

Constitution was all that would be needed to declare a republic. 'The

reference to "the Queen and Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the

sovereignty of the United Kingdom" could be replaced with "The Queen shall

mean the President of Australia who shall be selected by [whatever means]",

he said.' Mr Turnbull also said that 'The Liberals are just turning what

should be an apolitical citizens issue into a party political one for

shabby political gain and I think that's a great pity.'(16)

8 July 1991 The Liberal Party president, Peter King, said the 'ARM was an

ALP inspired move as obvious as night follows day. The Labor Party needed a

smokescreen to detract attention from its poor economic performance. It's

Labor's republic and nobody should be fooled by it.'(17)

9 July 1991 Heather Gow, the vice-president of the Royal Commonwealth

Society, which had about 600 members said that anyone who spoke ill of the

Queen and who pushed for a republic was guilty of 'sedition and/or

treason'.(18)

12 July 1991 Liberal Senator Rod Kemp wrote to the Australian Financial

Review and argued that there were a number of important constitutional

matters to be resolved such as: 'What will be the role of the republican

head of State? How will the republicans prevent the head of State either

from becoming a mere political cipher (by prime ministerial appointment),

or a major political power (by direct election)? What protections will be

put in place to check a government which acts illegally?'

17 July 1991 Former Treasurer, now Labor backbencher, Paul Keating was

asked where he stood on the republic by Ray Martin and replied 'I've got a

sneaking suspicion there's a certain inevitability about it all. But I

think it's good there's a public debate about it rather than a political

debate. Because you know once you get a political debate, it all becomes

polarised, it's like the referendums.'(19)

17 July 1991 Liberal Senator Bronwyn Bishop issued a media release which

said:

It may well have been High Noon on the Midday Show when Ron Casey

took a swipe at Normie Rowe but this conduct indicates just how

divisive the debate on the Monarchy has become. Not content to

see the country on its knees as a result of the recession the

Labor Party must be pleased that it is dividing the community on

an issue which has absolutely no political relevance.(20)

21 July 1991 The Opposition spokesman on Industrial Relations John Howard,

writing in The Sunday Telegraph, said:

the republicans are trying to have it both ways. They want to

achieve a fundamental change to Australia's Constitution yet have

made the political judgement that the chances of winning that

change are much greater if the public are lulled into believing

that there is really no change at all. As a democrat I totally

accept and respect the right of fellow Australians to advocate a

republic. However their advocacy should be upon the basis that

Australia will be better off by putting aside the present system.

There are many who think it quite incongruous that Australia's

head of state should live in the United Kingdom. If so we have

lived with that incongruity for a long time and there is little

evidence that our independence, self-esteem and dignity as a

nation has suffered as a consequence...;In many ways we have at

present the best of both worlds. Some describe it as a crowned

republic.(21)

21 July 1991 The Governor-General, wrote to Labor backbencher Barry Jones,

in relation to a reference by Mr Jones to Mr Hayden as 'a closet

republican'. Mr Hayden reportedly said that he had

never professed such (republican) beliefs to anyone, including

you. Indeed, for many years up to the present, and especially

when I was Leader of the Opposition for several years, I had gone

out of my way, and continue to do so, to point out that I believe

the republican cause to be unimportant in its own right and to be

politically counter-productive. I wonder if you would be good

enough to let me know the basis on which you made this sweeping

claim? ...;can I take it that, should you be commenting in this

area in future, you will do so with accuracy?(22)

24 July 1991 The Labor Premier of South Australia, John Bannon, said that

'there was no overriding constitutional or social reason for becoming a

republic, though the move was probably inevitable'.(23)

26 July 1991 Former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam said that 2001 would be a

realistic target date for establishing a republic and that he believed the

person appointed to the presidency would be elected by all members of

parliament, rather than by the people or on the advice of the Prime

Minister.(24)

4 August 1991 The Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn, the Right

Reverend Owen Dowling said that 'I personally am in favour of the debate

about a republic, though I know there are many members of the church who

are horrified by the thought and are against the matter being debated in

Australia.'(25)

12 August 1991 The Victorian Liberal Party State president, Michael Kroger,

said that the Victorian Liberal Party would begin a campaign to win

grass-roots support to fight moves to make Australia a republic. Mr Kroger

said 'Liberals could not afford to ignore recent statements of support for

a republic from the ALP.'(26)

20 December 1991 Paul Keating sworn in as Prime Minister after deposing Bob

Hawke.

10 January 1992 The Labor Government in South Australia replaced the royal

coat of arms in courtrooms with the South Australian coat of arms,

featuring the piping shrike, a type of small magpie which lives in the

State.(27)

11 January 1992 The Republican Party of Australia advised that it would

apply to the Australian Electoral Commission for accreditation as a

political party and that it would field two Senate candidates in each

mainland State at the 1992 election. The party had applied to the

Commission in 1987 but the RSL had objected and it was not accredited.(28)

27 January 1992 The Australian Republican Movement (ARM), in its first

annual Australia Day statement said that ill-informed and misguided debate

had created much confusion about a republican Australia. They called for a

republican convention to draft the necessary constitutional changes and

restore a focus to the debate.(29)

31 January 1992 The Victorian State President of the RSL Bruce Ruxton,

wrote that the RSL and its membership 'will never agree to this country

becoming a republic. We are proud to be associated with the Queen, who is

our patron, and who, as this country's head of State, has never once put a

foot wrong. Show me a politician with such a record.'(30)

1 February 1992 The Prime Minister, Paul Keating, called for a new

Australian flag. 'I suppose people around the world are entitled to say,

"We look at your flag-you've got the flag of another country in the corner.

Are you a colony or are you a nation?"' The Leader of the Opposition, Dr

John Hewson, supported the present flag but said debate over the flag was

far less important than solving the problems of the economy. Dr Hewson said

'I personally think our flag has served us well...;I know a lot of

Australians have fought under it and many have died for it ...;If it's

working well, why change it?'(31)

4 February 1992 Sir Richard Kirby of Aus-flag, argued for a new Australian

flag without the Union Jack incorporated into its design as the current

flag 'proclaims that Australia is still ...; a dominion of Great Britain',

and is, therefore, 'inadequate, divisive and demonstrably colonial'(32)

10 February 1992 The chairman of the ARM, Tom Keneally, referring to the

forthcoming visit of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, said: '(i)f we

Australians feel we cannot have our own ceremonies and celebrations without

importing a Royal person to give them legitimacy, then of course, we should

pay for the expense of the British monarch's journey.'(33)

10 February 1992 The Opposition spokesman for Industrial Relations,

Employment and Training, John Howard, issued a news release that in part

stated, 'Although I strongly support the monarchy, I fully accept that a

respectable intellectual and emotional case can be made for an Australian

republic ...;however, those advocating a republic should not be allowed to

escape with the furphy that getting rid of the monarchy would save money.

Clearly it would not.'(34)

15 February 1992 In an article in the Australian, Tom Keneally proposed

that:

Australia should have a head of State who is an Australian

citizen, who is appointed by and can be removed by the Australian

people and who represents and owes sole allegiance to the people

of Australia. This head of state or President would have powers

approximating those of the Governor-General and would act solely

on the advice of prime ministers and ministers. He or she would

have none of the executive powers enjoyed by the presidents of

the United States or France.(35)

15 February 1992 John Howard, in an article in the Australian said:

Australia is, and has been for some time, a crowned republic. To

many, the status quo is the best of both worlds. Those who do not

care for the royal link do not find it intruding into their

everyday lives. On the other hand, millions of Australians have a

deep respect for the institution and admire the dedication and

sense of duty displayed by the present occupant. Although this is

a minimalist defence of the monarchy and is not the sole basis of

my own view, it does thrust a heavy onus on those wanting to

change to establish a clear national benefit in becoming a

republic. A mixture of historical sentiment, constitutional

utility, the proven deficiencies of alternatives and an

instinctive feeling that the aphorism 'If it works don't fix it'

is apt leads me to advocate the retention of the monarchy.(36)

18 February 1992 The Queen arrived in Sydney for the Sydney Council's 150th

anniversary. She also visited Dubbo, Canberra and Adelaide before returning

to Britain on 25 February.(37)

19 February 1992 Five State Labor MP's Franca Arena, Ian Macdonald,

Meredith Burgmann, Ann Symonds and Andy Mason, stated that they would not

attend the Queen's unveiling of her official portrait and the afternoon tea

at Parliament House and any other social function. They added that:

Australians should be politically mature enough to have their own

head of state and flag. The Queen should not be the head of the

Australian people simply because she is the British monarch.(38)

23 February 1992 Former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam speaking at the

Australian Young Labor Conference dinner said that it was inevitable that

Australia would become a republic and that it would simply involve a

referendum to change the constitution and to substitute the word President

for Queen and Governor-General.(39)

24 February 1992 During the Queen's visit to Australia, Prime Minister

Keating gave a speech of welcome in which he congratulated the Queen on the

40th anniversary of her accession to the throne. Mr Keating noted that

Australians had changed over those 40 years, and that some of those who had

sat in Parliament during the Queen's first visit to Australia in 1954 had

seen the world through imperial eyes and that many remembered monarchs from

Queen Victoria onwards. 'This is an altogether different generation,

reflecting the profound change in our two countries and the relationship

between them,' Mr Keating said. The Prime Minister also said that:

As our constitutional relationship has evolved, so have the

circumstances of our economic and political lives. These days we

must both face the necessities of a global economy and global

change of often staggering speed and magnitude. Just as Great

Britain some time ago sought to make her future secure in the

European community, so Australia now vigorously seeks

partnerships with countries in our own region. Our outlook is

necessarily independent. That independence in part was reflected

in your becoming, in 1973, Queen of Australia. In 1992 it is

reflected in our growing sense of national purpose.(40)

25 February 1992 The Opposition spokesman on Trade, Alexander Downer, said

that the Prime Minister's speech was 'poorly conceived, weakly delivered

and downright ungracious. He suggested that Mr Keating would be remembered

as Australia's most petty, mean-minded and ungracious Prime Minister since

Federation.'(41)

25 February 1992 The Opposition spokesman on Industrial Relations, John

Howard, said 'the reception for the Queen was insultingly low key and that

Mr Keating's speech was inappropriate.'(42)

25 February 1992 The Opposition Leader, Dr Hewson, said 'he was very

disappointed that Mr Keating had taken the opportunity to give a tilt in

favour of republicanism in front of the Queen. I come from a similar

background to Paul Keating. We were taught to show a bit of respect and I

think that was an occasion to show respect and not to make a political

statement.'(43)

26 February 1992 Prime Minister Paul Keating was criticised in the British

press for putting his arm around the Queen.(44)

27 February 1992 During Question Time, the Prime Minister accused Britain

of abandoning Australia to the Japanese during the Second World War. He

said that Britain was the 'country which decided not to defend the Malayan

peninsula, not to worry about Singapore and not to give us our troops back

to keep ourselves free from Japanese domination.' He also accused Dr Hewson

of having subservient respect for Britain, rather than respect for his own

nation. 'If he believes that I cannot say that this is a more independent

country, that we're not tied to Britain's coat tails...;if he thinks that

we ought to be basically into British boot-strapping, forelock tugging, and

he calls that respect, it's not respect for this country,' Mr Keating said.

He then spoke of the 1950's as 'the golden age when vast numbers of

Australians never got a look in: when women did not get a look in and had

no equal rights and no equal pay; when migrants were factory fodder; when

Aborigines were excluded from the system...;and that awful cultural cringe

under Menzies which held us back for nearly a generation.'(45)

28 February 1992 John Howard wrote to the Australian Financial Review and

said:

If Australia were to become a republic because the majority of

Australians believed we would be better governed as a

consequence, then so be it. That would not be a judgement I would

advocate or that I believe on a proper analysis of the arguments

should be accepted. However, it would at least have the merit of

a decision taken for the right reason. If by contrast, we throw

out the Monarchy because we think it will make us more acceptable

in our region, we will not only be mistaken but our decision will

be regarded with patronising contempt by our Asian

neighbours.(46)

28 February 1992 The Leader of the National Party, Tim Fischer, issued a

media release that said in part:

The National Party and indeed the Coalition strongly supports the

retention of our Constitutional Monarchy, it has served us well

in the past and present and helps provide a great deal of

stability and continuity. It is for these practical reasons,

rather than sentimental reasons, that the Constitutional Monarchy

be retained; in saying this it does not cut across the need for

Australia to greatly boost its relations and its economic and

export links with Asia.

Mr Fisher also warned that a Republic of Australia and the creation of an

Office of President of Australia would lead to greater centralisation of

powers within the cocoon of Canberra.'(47)

28 February 1992 The Leader of the Opposition, Dr Hewson, appeared on the

Alan Jones' radio program and the Hinch Program. Dr Hewson said on the

Hinch Program that

I don't think it (republicanism) will be an issue in the next

election. I think it is an issue that we will debate in Australia

for quite some time...;I'm not (a republican), I actually think

that the constitutional monarchy has worked particularly well for

Australia and I have this quite simple view that when things work

well and they don't need changing, why bother changing them? I am

concerned that these issues quite often arise as a diversion that

keeps us away from the main game and right now that is creating

jobs.

28 February 1992 The Sydney Morning Herald reported that

A palace spokesperson confirmed that there was no royal protocol

on touching the Queen, who arrived back in Britain today. The

Queen is a normal person and there are no rules and regulations

about touching her.(48)

29 February 1992 The Sydney Morning Herald reported that former Prime

Minister Malcolm Fraser had written to the Daily Telegraph in London

defending Mr Keating's speech to the Queen and claiming that Australia 'got

the worst end of the deal' from Britain in both world wars.(49)

29 February 1992 Fifty-seven per cent of people questioned by the Saulwick

Age Poll wanted Australia to become a republic, 81 per cent supported

Australia remaining a member of the Commonwealth, 39 per cent said they

wanted the Queen to remain head of state and 4 per cent, didn't know what

they wanted.(50)

1 March 1992 The Sunday Telegraph reported that Mr Keating had said 'I

think Australia will end up a republic at some point but certainly not

while I'm Prime Minister.'(51)

1 March 1992 Former Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam said

I've changed my views on the question of the monarchy in the past

16 years. My old view was that it didn't matter...;Why I changed

my mind is because of the conduct of Sir John Kerr...;What we

would propose is that the president should be the head of state

and should carry out the only job there is for a head of state:

transfer power from one administration to another if an election

shows that the former administration no longer has a majority in

the House of Representatives, or if the Parliament shows the

former administration has not got a majority in the House of

Representatives.(52)

1 March 1992 Labor Senator Bob McMullan said that 'for more than 20 years I

have been of the view that it is both inevitable and desirable that

Australia should become a republic.'(53)

1 March 1992 The Saulwick poll in the Sydney Morning Herald and the

Melbourne Age showed that 42 per cent of people questioned preferred that

Australia remain in the Commonwealth as a republic, 15 per cent wanted

Australia to become a republic outside the Commonwealth and 39 per cent

wanted Australia to remain in the Commonwealth with the Queen as head of

state.(54)

1 March 1992 The Young Liberal Movement of Australia issued a press release

which said:

Prime Minister Keating's attack on our friends in Britain is

simply a tactic to divert attention...; and attempt to fix the

mess that he has created...;Keating cannot make us a republic

until he makes us one nation: his plan to try to do that is a

dismal failure and has set back his republican cause by years as

we repay the debt it leaves us with.(55)

1 March 1992 The Sunday Telegraph reported that hundreds of people had

joined the Australian Republican Movement since the Queen's visit,

including Australia's wealthiest woman, Janet Holmes a Court. To join the

Australian Republican Movement, members sign the following declaration.

'By January 1, 2001...;the centenary of the proclamation of

federation, Australia shall become an independent republic. Into

that goal we now pledge our best endeavours.'(56)

2 March 1992 Following Prime Minister Keating's remarks on World War II,

debate continued as to whether Britain did all it could or whether the

British knew that Singapore could not be defended but kept the reports

secret from Australia.(57)

2 March 1992 On the first day of the Wills by-election campaign, the leader

of the Opposition, Dr Hewson said that republicanism would not reduce the

number of unemployed in Australia and any debate on the issue should be

secondary to economic recovery.(58)

3 March 1992 Research conducted by the Federal Liberal Party secretariat

showed that seven Labor held seats which would be lost with a swing of less

than 5 per cent, contained high concentrations of British migrants and that

Prime Minister Keating's attack on Australia's traditional links with

Britain and the monarchy could cost the Government a number of vital

marginal seats.(59)

3 March 1992 Former Prime Minister Hawke said that the Government should

make a statement of intent that it wanted Australia to become a republic

and proposed that a referendum be held in the life of the next

Parliament.(60)

6 March 1992 The Deputy Premier of the National Party in NSW, Wal Murray,

said that Mr Keating's criticism of Britain's role (in the fall of

Singapore) during World War II (and the defence of Australia) was 'a

transparent and deceitful exercise in back-alley politics'.(61)

6 March 1992 The Governor-General, Bill Hayden speaking at a book launch,

said that 'too many Australians remain jammed in the jaws of an old

imperialist vice that refuses to let them move on to a more productive

understanding of our neighbours.'(62)

6 March 1992 Mr Murray retaliated, accusing the Governor-General of

'insulting the Queen and being a stooge of the republican movement'.

The Governor -General has deliberately trammelled the protocol

and convention of his high office and has shown his true colours

as a stooge of the republican push. He has denigrated his high

position by issuing a calculated insult to Her Majesty in the

form of a political comment, reflecting on Australia's existing

constitutional system.(63)

7 March 1992 Prime Minister Keating suggested, at the launch of Rodney

Hall's novel, The Second Bridegroom, at Writers Week in Adelaide, that it

was a 'curiosity' to have the Union Jack in the corner of the Australian

flag. He also said, in reply to a question about how Australians could be

more Australian, 'Well, for a start, by not tugging the forelock at the

British establishment. That's a place for starters, the Liberal Party have

yet to learn about that.'(64)

8 March 1992 Former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser wrote that

Those who want to change the system and become a republic seem to

believe that Australia would stand taller, that Australians would

be better off. There is no evidence of that.

There is no point idly and without purpose cutting off 200 years

of history.

In welcoming Her Majesty to Parliament House, the Prime Minister

pointed out that Britain had decided that its economic future lay

with Europe, and that we, partly as a consequence of that, had to

recognise that our economic future lies with the countries of

Asia. It was an obvious comment and not one that could possibly

have given offence to Her Majesty as Queen of Australia.

It was taken, however, by some to be a republican statement, by

others to be discourteous and led to a great furore and a lot of

nonsense, especially in the British press. It also led to further

debates in the Parliament. Here the question of our

constitutional forms became much confused with the question of

Australian nationalism and Australian pride.(65)

8 March 1992 English all-rounder Ian Botham, commenting on the republican

debate said 'Bring Mr Keating here and I'll flatten him.' The English

cricket team later stormed out of Ballarat just hours after arriving as

they claimed that their beds were too short.(66)

8 March 1992 National Party MP, Michael Cobb, said that he was considering

whether to write a letter of complaint to the Queen over comments by the

Governor-General Bill Hayden. During a speech, Mr Hayden had joked about

losing his job after opinion polls showed a surge of support for a

republic. Mr Hayden said 'It doesn't look good does it? This might be my

swan song.' NSW Deputy Premier Wal Murray claimed the 'outrageous remarks'

insulted the Queen and showed Mr Hayden to be a stooge of the republican

movement.(67)

8 March 1992 Liberal Member for Goldstein Dr David Kemp wrote that:

The Prime Minister appears to be one of the few people who has

not realised that Australia is a fully independent country...;Let

no one imagine that a republic can easily be brought about in

this country. There is nothing inevitable about Australia

becoming a republic. A move to a republic would require the

powers of the President to be specified, including his powers in

relation to the Senate, and in the case of a deadlock between the

Houses of Parliament. The powers of the Senate would therefore

have to be redefined. This would open up the whole federal

compact on which this country is based.(68)

9 March 1992 The Opposition spokesman on Industrial Relations, John Howard,

referring to Prime Minister Keating, said:

that '(i)t is quite obvious, both from his historically

inaccurate anti-British outburst in Parliament and his more

considered speech in Adelaide last Friday, that the Prime

Minister has embarked upon a course of politicising Australian

patriotism...;Nothing could be more divisive, nothing more

destructive of the united national spirit we need and which he

claims to champion.(69)

10 March 1992 The Australian reported that 'Mr Howard's decision to press

on with his defence of Australia's ties to Britain in the face of Dr

Hewson's warning has led some shadow Cabinet members to question what they

see as Mr Howard's claim to be able to be(sic) speak out on a range of

issues beyond his portfolio area of employment'. The paper reported that

'Dr Hewson had told the Shadow Cabinet that Mr Keating's push for a

loosening of ties with Britain was an "artificial" issue and that Shadow

Cabinet members should not be distracted by it and should return "to the

main game". Dr Hewson urged his colleagues to "get back to the economy"

rather than focus on emotional side issues.'(70)

10 March 1992 The Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka

Anyaoku, in a Commonwealth Day radio interview, said that growing

republicanism in parts of the Commonwealth with traditionally close links

to Britain, such as Australia, did not jeopardise the broad-based

organisation.(71)

15 March 1992 The Leader of the Opposition, Dr John Hewson, said 'I haven't

changed my position at all, I'm surprised to see that people think I

have'.(72)

17 March 1992 Prime Minister Keating, in a speech to the Irish-Australian

Chamber of Commerce on St Patrick's Day, said:

I said a few things recently about the flag, but let me say this.

We've got to be certain of who we are to take our place in the

world, and we can't fly two symbols with our nation for much

longer. A nation internally uncertain about its representational

image is of course a nation uncertain about itself. I spent a

decade trying to transform the Australian economy...;to make it a

country with an international economic ambition. It became

increasingly plain to me that another kind of transformation is

necessary, a social transformation, a mental transformation,

because we are not going to make it simply be getting the nuts

and bolts together, by getting the macro-economy right,...;we

won't ever get it right until we get that mental transformation

that Australia is a country of its own character. Australia is a

country which will make its own way in the world. That's the

transformation we need to really pull off, our

internationalisation, our true independence...;But when it is

said in Australia that the contribution we made to Britain in

World War I was not returned in full in World War II when an

Australian view is expressed-scandal and outrage. Yet those who

care to consult the histories, even those written by Englishmen,

will find that it's not wrong or even indeed those who recently

consult the Financial Times or the Guardian or the London Times,

will find that it was not wrong. Yet my dissatisfaction and

disaffection is not with Britain or the British, it is with those

who cannot find it in themselves to speak with an unashamed and

wholehearted Australian voice, who not only fail at the essential

task to grasp the future but will not even grasp the past.(73)

17 March 1992 The Shadow Minister for Trade and Trade Negotiations,

Alexander Downer, issued a media release which said, in response to the

Prime Minister's remarks:

Mr Keating's campaign against Australia's national flag-which he

continued today-is a campaign to make Australians abandon their

national heritage, to turn their backs on their history and to

remodel Australia as a cold, austere, soulless and technocratic

State without traditions, heritage or history. One of the great

differences between Mr Keating's Labor Party and the Coalition is

that Mr Keating is essentially ashamed of our past whereas the

Coalition is proud of it...;It is only natural in a country which

owes so much to Britain for the way it is and the outward

expression of that heritage-the language it speaks-that we should

have the Union Jack in the corner of our flag.(74)

18 March 1992 The Treasurer, John Dawkins, said at the launch of Reluctant

Nation: Australia and the Allied Defeat of Japan 1942-45 - by David Day,

that:

[The republican debate] is not a diversion. It is a very

important issue which many Australians are already thinking

about, have been thinking about for some time and it is about

time the Liberal's stopped trying to spoil in relation to this

issue...;it will only be divisive if the Liberal Party continue

to be irrelevant on this issue. Of course, they are capable of

creating a diversion and a division as they did, or their

predecessors did, right back during the war when something as

simple and automatic as giving effect to the Statute of

Westminster was turned into a political issue by the conservative

parties of the time.(75)

18 March 1992 Dr Hewson said:

It's not going to do anything about jobs if we change the flag or

drop the constitutional monarchy. It's not going to create any

more confidence in individuals simply by changing the symbols.

The problem is, we have been independent for decades and decades,

since the beginning of this century. He [Mr Keating] had a real

choice over the 1980's as to whether we pursued economic success

or economic failure. He chose economic failure.(76)

23 March 1992 The Minister for Tourism, Alan Griffiths, said that Australia

was at a turning point and that Australians were psychologically prepared

to cut the '12 000-kilometre umbilical cord'. Mr Griffiths also said

Britain had 'cut Australia off at the knees' by joining the European

Community and he supported the attack by the Prime Minister on its record

as a war ally. On the question of why we have not had civil war in

Australia he said 'the reason why we haven't had civil wars is that

Australians are basically sensible people and we've had differences of

opinion but they have usually been over football or things like that'.(77)

24 March 1992 The Leader of the National Party, Tim Fischer, said that

'Keating's move to cut the gordian knot that has seen this country evolve

free of division, full of pride in its achievements with a truly democratic

government and a sense of belonging can only mean one thing and that is he

is intent on destabilising the Australian nation...;For one who loves the

beauty and craftsmanship of antique French clocks it seems strange he

cannot appreciate the civility offered by years of tradition and refinement

that has been steeped in chivalry, democracy and freedom.'(78)

25 March 1992 English cricketers Graham Gooch and Ian Botham walked out of

the World Cup cricket final dinner in protest against a comedy sketch by

royal impersonator Gerry Connolly. The English cricket manager said that

'We thought it entirely in poor taste for an occasion like this.'(79)

15 March 1992 Opposition leader Dr Hewson said that he would not object to

Australia becoming a republic if it became clear that most Australians

supported the change but that the change was not inevitable and that

Australia continued to be served well by the constitutional monarchy.(80)

29 March 1992 The Australian Republican Movement South Australian Campaign

Launch proposed:

'...;that by 1 January 2001-the first day of the 21st century and

the centenary of the proclamation of federation-Australia shall

become an independent republic.'(81)

31 March 1992 According to a Bulletin poll, 41 per cent of Australians

believed that Australia should become a republic, 45 per cent were opposed

to the change and 14 per cent were uncommitted. These results compared with

1979 when a similar poll disclosed 31 per cent in favour, 61 per cent

against and 8 per cent uncommitted.(82)

3 April 1992 The Governor-General, Bill Hayden was 'stricken with despair'

on hearing that moves had been made to ban him from official ANZAC day

ceremonies in Ipswich for making 'pro-republican statements'.(83)

4 April 1992 Ministers in the Indonesian Government expressed 'delight' at

the Prime Minister's urgings that Australia become a more independent

nation.(84)

5 April 1992 Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke wrote that:

I said myself as Prime Minister on a number of occasions that it

was inevitable and appropriate that Australia would become a

republic within the Commonwealth. Inevitable, because

increasingly younger generations of Australians, particularly for

those from a non-British background, the idea of sharing another

country's head of state doesn't make much sense. Appropriate,

because our proper sense of robust national sovereign

independence is not complete until Australia does have its own

entirely separate head of state.' Mr Hawke said that he did not

believe the issues was one of 'overwhelming urgency' and that the

timing of the change to a republic should be when the reign of

the current sovereign ends.(85)

7 April 1992 The Prime Minister, Paul Keating said, referring to Mr Hawke,

'I never heard a peep out of him about the flag or our constitutional

future when he was Prime Minister, but he's got plenty of views now'. On

the timing of the republic, the Prime Minister said that to wait until the

reign of the Queen finishes 'could be a very long time from now.'(86)

8 April 1992 The leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator John Coulter,

told the Australian that most Democrats were 'soft Republicans'.(87)

12 April 1992 RSL members barred republican supporters from entering their

clubs on Anzac day.(88)

23 April 1992 Academic Dr John Hirst wrote that:

...;as the sensible multiculturalist recognises, our fundamental

institutions and values, which all citizens must support, are the

old (and British) ones; parliamentary government, the rule of

law, civil liberties, tolerance. As our society becomes more

diverse, we need to insist more firmly on their centrality...;A

republic which disowned our political and cultural heritage would

be a pathetic and impoverished body.(89)

27 April 1992 The Prime Minister visited Kokoda. He distanced Australia

from its British links and drew attention to the significance of the

Papua-New Guinea battles.(90)

28 April 1992 The Canberra Times editorialised that:

Our constitutional set-up and the flag need to be looked at in

the light of the changing make-up of Australia's population. But

the way he (Mr Keating) has gone about it is unsavoury...;He has

belittled the role of those who served outside the Pacific in

both wars. And he has used his overseas trip as a platform to

pursue his political aims. The most appalling thing is that the

strategy is working, or more correctly being allowed to work

because of the ineptness of the Opposition's response. The Leader

of the Opposition, has said that the economic debate must come

first and that Mr Keating's launch into nationalism is a

diversion. That is true. But surely we can have two debates at

the same time...;. Mr Keating would then have the harder job. It

is all very well saying change the flag and the monarchy, but

what to?(91)

28 April 1992 The Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane, Peter Hollingworth, said

that 'Rather than talking about independence, we should be trying to pursue

a policy of inter-dependence'. 'The idea of independence is a very

difficult notion, and I am not sure in the end that that is an important

thing that we should be pushing.'(92)

30 April 1992 It was reported that the ALP generally supported changing the

flag but senior members of the Government believed that Mr Keating was

moving too quickly and would urge him to set a time-table well beyond the

next election.(93)

2 May 1992 Merchant banker and lawyer, Malcolm Turnbull, wrote that

Australia deserved a national flag which unambiguously symbolised Australia

and its unique destiny as an independent nation. He said however that while

a consensus was developing on what sort of republic Australia should become

nobody had come up with a new flag which excited popular imagination. He

said '[i]n this respect, the Prime Minister has miscued in pushing the new

flag harder than the republic'.(94)

3 May 1992 The National Party Victorian State conference condemned the

Prime Minister Mr Keating for the 'disgraceful manner in which he is

pursuing his republican aims.' Mr Fischer pledged to fight Mr Keating 'all

the way' to retain the flag.(95)

5 May 1992 An opinion poll showed that 54 per cent of people would never

want to see the flag changed, compared with 42 per cent who favoured a

change now or later. There was a reversal in relation to a republic with 45

per cent opposed, compared with 41 per cent in favour, which eliminated the

narrow majority in favour in the previous poll.(96)

8 May 1992 Mr Keating said that the heightened sense of Australian identity

had struck a positive chord in Indonesia and that it was not surprising

that a country like Indonesia, which had fought so hard for its

independence, should be interested in the emergence of a more clear-cut

view of Australian nationhood here. He also said that Australian people had

to have a belief in themselves to make change occur.

By this, I mean that to seize the opportunities and assure our

long-term security, without prejudice to our predominantly

British and European origins and our continuing affections for

those places, we must determine as a people to think of Australia

as a place whose history is its own, whose traditions and values

are its own, whose future is most definitely its own.(97)

11 May 1992 A Saulwick Herald poll showed 56 percent of people thought

Australia should become a republic while 42 per cent favoured it remaining

a constitutional monarchy.(98)

14 May 1992 RSL president Brigadier Alf Garland said that Mr Keating was

'an Irish republican bigot.'(99)

15 May 1992 The Australian Republican Movement opened a Victorian branch

with about 200 members.(100)

15 May 1992 Malcolm Turnbull said that Mr Keating had hindered the move to

a republic by calling Liberals 'bootlickers' and lickspitters' to the

British. '[O]ur battle is to win the hearts and the minds of the Liberal

and National parties because until we have their support a referendum is

going to be a doubtful proposition'.(101)

18 May 1992 At the launch of the Western Australia Branch of the Australian

Republican Movement, Mr Turnbull said that the republican movement was too

important to become the property of one political party. He also said that

the most disappointing feature of the Liberal Party's stance on

republicanism was that at least half of its leaders supported Australia

becoming a republic.(102)

25 May 1992 Former Solicitor General, Sir Maurice Byers, said that:

the practical chance of Australia's becoming a republic in the

foreseeable future was nil, both because of the difficulties of

getting party political consensus and because of the difficulties

of getting any measures adopted by referendum. A republic was

probably inevitable, but...;important questions-not least the

issue of the powers that the president of a head of state should

have and how he or she should be elected-were rarely

canvassed.(103)

2 June 1992 Academic Geoffrey Partington, writing in The Bulletin on the

monarchy, portrayed the republican debate thus:

Since the leadership change did not bring any immediate

improvement in the economy or the political fortunes of the ALP,

Keating sought an issue that might present him as both a patriot

and genuine radical. Republicanism and pom-bashing were his

answers. His tactics succeeded in the short run and he and his

party have risen in the opinion polls for months.(104)

2 June 1992 Dame Joan Sutherland pledged her full support to 'Leadership

Beyond Politics - Australians For Constitutional Monarchy.'

4 June 1992 Australians for Constitutional Monarchy held their first public

meeting at Sydney's Lower Town Hall attended by about 450 people. The

foundation council consisted of the former Chief Justice of the High Court,

Sir Harry Gibbs, the Chancellor of Sydney University, Dame Leonie Kramer,

former Sydney Lord Mayor, Mr Doug Sutherland, the President of the NSW

Court of Appeal, Justice Michael Kirby, former Liberal Party Federal

President, Sir John Atwill and Mr Barry O'Keefe QC.(105)(106)

7 June 1992 The chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, Mr Tom

Keneally, said that an aboriginal woman would make an ideal first President

of the proposed Republic of Australia.(107)

7 June 1992 The convenor of the Republican Movement in Victoria, Dr John

Hirst, said that he wanted the Queen's Birthday holiday replaced by Wattle

Day.(108)

8 June 1992 The leader of the National Party, Tim Fischer, challenged

Australians who supported the Prime Minister's bid for a republic and a new

flag, not to take the Queen's Birthday public holiday and to spend a day at

work.(109)

8 June 1992 Professor Donald Horne said that the Queen was no longer a

relevant symbol for Australia.

Basically the problem is that Queen Elizabeth is always the Queen

of Great Britain...;She is Queen of Australia only when she comes

to Australia. If the British Government wants her to, she will

make speeches that go against Australian interest. In this sense,

Australia has a monarch some of whose activities can, in effect,

be those of a foreign agent. Queen Elizabeth is an admirable

person. But by going on pretending she is Queen of Australia,

Australians place her in a position in which she could be used as

the agent of a foreign power against the interest of

Australia.(110)

10 June 1992 The Anglican Archbishop of Adelaide, Ian George, drew a

parallel between Mr Keating's push to change the flag and make Australia a

republic with the 'bread and circuses' staged by Roman emperors to divert

public attention from serious problems.(111)

10 June 1992 The Australian editorial said that the private lives of the

Prince and Princess of Wales were not remote from Australian constitutional

affairs.

The intangible factor is the esteem in which Prince Charles is

held and, more immediately, the extent to which the activities of

the royal family are undermining ongoing support for the existing

constitutional arrangements...;The dignity of Australia, its

independence and the recognition of its sovereignty will only be

fully achieved when it becomes a republic. No amount of royal

harmony can change that fact. An amount of royal disharmony may

speed its recognition.(112)

26 June 1992 The Prime Minister, at the Australian Book Publishers Awards

in Sydney said that:

Visitors like John Mortimer could be forgiven for wondering why

we are so pre-occupied with questions of identity...;But it seems

to me a fundamental concern...;We have always been ambivalent

about who we are. Robert Menzies of course resolved the dilemma

by saying we were like a child...;He imagined us in our

relationship with Britain as being like a youth returning to its

mother, the old family-as if back from a spell at Timbertop, or

jackerooing. Hudson (W. J. Hudson, an historian of Australian

foreign policy) uses a similar metaphor but puts a different spin

on it. When Britain formalised her withdrawal into Europe, he

(Hudson) said, Australians "felt bereft and betrayed'. Australia

was like an adult son having affairs (economically with Japan and

militarily with the United States) but still living at home and,

worse than kicking him out of the old home, mother was moving

house and not taking him with her.

The Prime Minister said

In the 1990's, without the slightest disrespect to a country for

which I have the greatest admiration, and to whose language and

institutions I am a very grateful heir, I want to see us leave

home...;I believe the Oath of Allegiance sworn by new citizens at

naturalisation ceremonies should proclaim unequivocally their

loyalty to Australia and the things we believe Australia stands

for-including liberty, tolerance, social justice-those very

beliefs which underpin multiculturalism.(113)

28 June 1992 The Federal Opposition spokesman on Immigration, Mr Phillip

Ruddock, indicated that the Opposition would resist any push by the Prime

Minister to remove the reference to the Queen in the oath of allegiance

sworn by new citizens. Mr Ruddock said that unless Australia became a

republic, the oath of allegiance should remain to the Queen as Australia's

head of state. He described the move as part of Mr Keating's 'Irish agenda'

to turn Australia into a republic.(114)

29 June 1992 The Democrats leader, Senator John Coulter, said that he

thought the Australian Democrats would take the view that a change to the

oath, like the proposal for a new flag, should go to a plebiscite at the

election.(115)

30 June 1992 The Australian editorial said that:

There is no firm reason why symbols obscuring the path of

republicanism-which is clearly an evolutionary path-cannot be

removed along the way...;Unlike the constitutional oath of

allegiance sworn to the Queen by Mr Keating and every member of

the House of Representative or Senate-which would require a

national referendum to amend-the citizenship oath comes under the

Australian Citizenship Act and can be changed by the simpler

method of legislative amendment. If Parliament so wishes, then

let the Prime Minister begin to put his republican principles

into practice(116)

2 July 1992 The national president of the RSL, Brigadier Alf Garland, said

the League would 'oppose to the bitter end' Mr Keating's plans to change

the flag and the oath of allegiance.(117)

8 July 1992 Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke said that:

it was inevitable that Australia would become a republic,

probably even by 2001. But I'm damned it I'm going to waste any

of my time, at this stage, getting my mind or my knickers in a

knot about this issue...;If we were a republic tomorrow, it would

have no impact on the daily welfare of the men, women and

children of this country.(118)

14 July 1992 The Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, said that the

republicans wanted the constitutional system left as it was with the

exception of a change in the head of state and that this showed that our

constitutional system was in good shape.(119)

23 July 1992 At the first meeting of the Constitutional Centenary

Foundation, the Attorney-General, Michael Duffy said that:

the public should be educated about the Constitution before any

serious debate about becoming a republic. At the end of the day

you are going to have to go back to the people on many of these

issues and you won't succeed on that unless you have firstly

discussion and education on the issues and, at the end of the

day, bipartisanship.(120)

29 July 1992 A debate between the republicans and the constitutional

monarchists was held at the Queen Victoria Building in Sydney and the

Sydney Morning Herald described the debate as 'fighting in an extremely

civilised manner. It may be a sign of Australian maturity.'(121)

23 August 1992 The Canberra Times editorial stated that

The latest shenanigans from the Royal family-albeit the younger

in-laws-strike a blow at the heart of support for its retention

at the head of the Australian system of government. The

photographs of the Duchess of York cavorting semi-clad with her

Texas friend which have been splashed around the world are sadly

offensive even to the most died-in-the-wool promoter of the Royal

connection.(122)

30 August 1992 At the annual conference of the Northern Territory

Country-Liberal Party in Darwin, the leader of the Liberal Party, Dr John

Hewson, and the Leader of the National Party, Tim Fischer, warned that a

republic would be used by Labor to try to centralise power in a new office

of the President of Australia.(123)

30 August 1992 The Prime Minister, Paul Keating indicated that he did not

intend to push republicanism as an issue in the federal election and that a

republic was 'years away'.(124)

30 September 1992 Mr Keating said in an interview for British television:

I think the Queen has been regarded as entirely conscientious and

well-liked by Australians but they do wonder about the relevance

of a constitutional arrangement which relies on the Queen of

Australia being largely resident on the other side of the

globe.(125)

16 October 1992 Media magnate Rupert Murdoch said that he always had

sympathy with the republican debate. He said 'I think it's all happening.

We don't have to get excited about it. Another generation, another 20 years

or so, and it'll be over.'(126)

29 October 1992 A former secretary to the Governor-General, Sir David

Smith, speaking at a conference at Parliament House said that

'Constitutional monarchy does not have to justify its continued existence,

but rather it is up to those who wish to replace it to provide the

reasons.'(127)

1 November 1992 A poll conducted by Quadrant Research showed that 49 per

cent of people wanted the present system of Federal parliamentary

government but with an Australian head of state chosen by both Houses of

Parliament. twelve per cent favoured a change to the US system and 37 per

cent wanted to continue with the present system retaining the Queen as head

of state.(128)

14 November 1992 The Prime Minister, Mr Keating, expressed support for

changes to the Oath of Citizenship to encourage a stronger sense of

national identity. He also raised, for the first time, the possibility of

an Australian head of state. He stressed that the Government was not

pushing the issue but simply indicating that it should be debated.(129)

18 November 1992 A reader in Law at the University of Melbourne, Greg

Craven, wrote that any proposal to convert Australia into a republic would

be attended by three main constitutional complications. The first concerns

the 'covering clauses' of the Constitution (that is the first eight

sections of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act) which contain

references to the monarchy. Section 128 is expressed to apply only to 'this

Constitution' but section 9 of the Constitution Act has the effect that

'the Constitution' only begins after the covering clauses. There is thus an

argument that the covering clauses cannot be amended under section 128. The

second concerns the nature of the change to the Constitution. Section 128

does not permit changes that would vary the fundamental or essential

character of the Constitution and the abolition of the monarchy would

arguably be such a change. The third obstacle is that the constitutional

systems of the Commonwealth and the States are quite separate. Australia

effectively has not one but seven monarchies.(130)

19 November 1992 At a debate on the monarchy at Sydney University the

question of religious discrimination was raised (the Act of Settlement 1701

requires the monarch to be an Anglican.) The question of sexual

discrimination was also raised as males always supersede females in the

succession.(131)

10 December 1992 The Prince and Princess of Wales separated. Liberal

Senator Rod Kemp said that the 'royal marriage difficulties need not affect

Australia's constitutional system because the powers of the Crown were

exercised in this country by the Governor-General. His powers are derived

from the Australian Constitution, not the monarch of the day'. Senator

Schacht and Dr John Hirst argued that the stability and continuity for

which the royal family once stood no longer applied.(132)

18 December 1992 Mr Keating announced Cabinet's decision to amend the

Citizenship Act and the oath of allegiance. The new preamble to the Act

would define citizenship as a common bond involving reciprocal rights and

obligations uniting all Australians. The new oath would be:

From this time forward I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people

whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and

whose laws I will uphold and obey.

The previous oath or affirmation was to be 'faithful and bear true

allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, her

heirs and successors according to the law, and I will faithfully observe

the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen.'(133)

20 December 1992 The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, Senator Bob

McMullan, writing in the Canberra Times said:

I have long held the view, and expressed in previous articles,

that Australia should have an Australian head of state selected

under an Australian process determined by the Australian people.

No independent nation can accept less.(134)

5 January 1993 The 25th annual convention of the national Young Liberals

supported a referendum on republicanism after the next federal election but

also supported the constitutional status quo in a series of motions

supporting the monarchy, the flag and regular tours of Australia by the

monarchy.(135)

24 February 1993 Prime Minister Keating, giving the Policy Launch Address

for the 1993 Federal Election said:

It is perhaps in part because Australians are growing in

confidence that more and more of them are questioning whether it

is appropriate for Australia to have as its head of state the

monarch of another country. Many Australians-some surveys suggest

a majority-believe that we will be better able to succeed in the

world with the unique and unambiguous identity which an

Australian head of state, chosen by the Australian people, could

provide. While it is far from the most pressing matter facing the

nation, it is nevertheless important that we do not let this

decade leading to the centenary of the Federation pass without

advancing the debate. To do this we will set up a broadly based

committee of eminent Australians, including representatives of

the States, to develop a discussion paper which considers the

options for a Federal Republic of Australia. Any options

developed by the committee would not seek to change our way of

government; only to have an Australian, chosen by Australians, as

Australia's head of state. I would like to extend an invitation

to the Opposition to participate in the workings of this

committee. It would be the intention that as a result of this

committee's deliberations and the public discussion that would

follow, the Australian people would be in a position to decide by

referendum later in the decade whether Australia should become a

Republic by the year 2001.(136)

25 February 1993 National Party leader Tim Fischer said that Mr Keating's

announcement was a last ditch effort to distract the public and that Mr

Keating 'will not be in government when this issue needs to be addressed in

three weeks' time.'(137)

25 February 1992 Opposition leader Dr John Hewson said that the Keating

committee was unnecessary because former High Court judge and

Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen already chaired a body examining

possible changes to the constitution and that the republic was not an issue

but a distraction.(138)

26 February 1993 Professor George Winterton wrote that the proposal for an

Australian republic raised four main questions: What constitutional change

would be required? How should the president be chosen? What powers should

the president have? What should be done at State level?(139)

1 March 1993 The 'Squidgy' tape was played on Australian television.

4 March 1993 The Leader of the Opposition, Dr John Hewson, said that the

Opposition would not stand in the way of a groundswell of opinion to make

Australia a republic but warned that a shift to republicanism would involve

more fundamental changes to government than so far discussed. He said that

he was 'a strong defender of open and public debate on all these issues

because I think they are very important. They're not the preserve of a

politician to change...;because in the end it has got to be the decision of

the people.'(140)

13 March 1993 The Federal Election was won by the Australian Labor Party.

16 March 1993 The Prime Minister, Paul Keating, said that he had put his

vision of a republic to voters and been endorsed and that he would now move

ahead with his plans for a referendum to sever constitutional links with

Britain and create a republic by 2001.(141)

20 March 1993 Former NSW Premier Nick Greiner called on the Liberal Party

to abandon the monarchy as an 'article of faith' and take a pro-active role

in leading the republican debate. Mr Howard said that the Coalition had

erred during the election campaign in ignoring republicanism.(142)

22 March 1993 Northern Territory Chief Minister Marshall Perron supported

calls for a Liberal Party debate over moves to make Australia a

Republic.(143)

27 March 1993 Dr Hewson said that he did not think that a republic was

inevitable but that he thought that the debate was inevitable.

It's a debate we have to have. What I want is a specific proposal

that I can express a view on. Right now, where there is no

alternative proposal...;I strongly support the debate about the

Republic and Australia, but it's up to the Government to now tell

us exactly what he's got in mind.(144)

28 March 1993 NSW Premier John Fahey said that 'It is inevitable that

Australia would become a republic' and he proposed a national

constitutional convention-to be called by Prime Minister Keating, to decide

the issues this year. Mr Fahey's remarks on the issue were supported by

Young Liberals at the NSW Liberal State Council meeting in Sydney.(145)

29 March 1993 Northern Territory Chief Minister Marshall Perron said that

he had sought legal advice on the likely legal and political implications

for the Territory in a new republic. He said that the community needed to

embrace the republican debate and discuss directions for the Territory if

republicanism was pursued by the Labor Federal Government. He described

himself as a 'fencesitter', one who would neither support nor condemn the

republican push.(146)

29 March 1993 National Party leader Tim Fischer said he remained a

supporter of a constitutional monarchy but that if the people chose a

republic, 'I'm an Australian first and I would accept that.'(147)

29 March 1993 The Opposition spokesman for Industrial Relations, John

Howard, said that he would accept a republic if Australians voted for it

although he was personally unconvinced of the need to move to a

republic.(148)

29 March 1993 The NSW National Party Leader, Wal Murray, said support for

the republic debate was repugnant and that he would vigorously oppose any

move for a republic.(149)

29 March 1993 Western Australia Liberal Premier Richard Court, said 'John

Fahey is entitled to his views. Western Australians are always suspicious

of the thrust taken by the major states of Victoria and NSW because they

have the most influence in our Federal system.' He also said that he was

willing to go to a constitutional convention and that 'You wouldn't want to

throw away a system that many other countries in the world would give

anything to have in place.'(150)

30 March 1993 Queensland Labor Premier Wayne Goss announced plans to remove

references to the Queen and the Crown from all state oaths, affirmations

and legislation.(151)

30 March 1993 Tasmania's Liberal Premier, Ray Groom, said it was inevitable

Australia would become a republic.(152)

30 March 1993 Victoria's Liberal Premier, Jeff Kennett, said that the

republic was a 10th order issue.(153)

30 March 1993 South Australia's Labor Premier, Lynn Arnold, said that

Australia should already be a republic.(154)

31 March 1993 A motion was passed in the NSW Lower House to:

endorse the Premier's public statement concerning the

inevitability of an Australian republic and support community

consultation and the holding of constitutional conventions as

proposed by the Premier prior to the consideration by the

Australian people, through a referendum, of any change to the

form and structure of the constitution of Australia.(155)

31 March 1993 South Australia's Opposition leader, Dean Brown, became the

first Liberal Party leader to declare his personal support for Australia

becoming a republic.(156)

1 April 1993 Opposition spokesman for Industrial Relations John Howard

issued a news release which said:

Gough Whitlam wants a future President of Australia to be elected

by the same procedure which chooses the Speaker of the House of

Representatives and the President of the Senate. That's the

system which gave us Leo McLeay! ...; If the Whitlam formula is

adopted we could end up with a party hack but without the

constraints now applying to the office of Governor-General.(157)

13 April 1993 The Democrat's Senator Cheryl Kernot said that:

Australia must 'seize the day' of debate on any move towards

republicanism and accompany it with major constitutional reform.

The existing Commonwealth constitution is rigid outmoded and

essentially undemocratic...;Whether or not Australia becomes a

republic, constitutional reform must occur for the protection of

all Australians from excessively literalist constitutional

interpretations.(158)

15 April 1993 The Australian Democrats leader, Senator John Coulter, warned

that Australians should not rush into republicanism by setting arbitrary

deadlines. 'A republic is both inevitable and desirable,' he said. 'But our

Prime Minister is giving us the bum's rush, setting an arbitrary deadline

in 2001 and talking of referendum questions as if the need to redefine our

constitutional status were dire. It is not.'(159)

27 April 1993 A former Victorian Liberal Premier, Sir Rupert Hamer

acknowledged that a republican Australia was both inevitable and, in a

minimal form, desirable and agreed to become an adviser to the Republican

Movement.(160)

26 April 1993 On PM, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, Dr Michael

Wooldridge, said that the Coalition did not rule out the possibility of

bipartisan support for the Prime Minister's eminent persons' committee

which will consider the republican issue, but that it was unlikely.

Journalist Ellen Fanning also reported that the National Party leader, Tim

Fischer had said that the Coalition should be cautious about participating

in the eminent persons' committee.(161)

28 April 1993 The establishment of a Republic Advisory Committee was

announced by Prime Minister Keating in his H. V. Evatt lecture. The

committee's terms of reference were to examine the issues and develop an

options paper describing the minimum constitutional changes necessary to

achieve a viable federal republic of Australia, maintaining the effect of

current conventions and principles of government, including the

relationship between the Commonwealth and the States.'(162)

The committee was asked to address the following matters:

1. The removal of all references to the monarch in the constitution.

2. The need for and creation of a new office of head of state and

consideration of what the office might be called.

3. The provisions for the appointment and termination of appointment of

the head of state including the method of selection and appointment,

eg

selection and appointment by the government of the day

selection by the government and endorsement by both Houses

of Parliament

appointment by an 'electoral college' comprising

representatives of various parliaments

appointment following election by the Federal Parliament

popular election.

4. How the powers of the new head of state and their exercise can be made

subject to the same conventions and principles which apply to the

powers of the Governor-General.

5. The nature of the amendments to the Commonwealth of Australia

Constitution Act required to implement the options.

6. The implications for the States.

7. Other aspects which arise in the Committee's deliberations and

consultations providing they are relevant to the overall objective in

the opening paragraph above.(163)

The chairman of the committee was lawyer Malcolm Turnbull and the six other

members were former NSW Premier Nick Greiner; SBS presenter Mary

Kostakidis; chairwoman of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island

Commission Lois O'Donoghue; former Hawke Cabinet Minister Susan Ryan; and

two academics, Dr John Hirst and Professor George Winterton. Two future

members of the committee were to represent the States and Territories and

the Opposition Leader, Dr Hewson, was invited to nominate a

representative.(164)

28 April 1993 A new ministerial oath removing reference to the Queen was

taken for the first time at the swearing in of the Attorney-General,

Michael Lavarch. Mr Lavarch promised to 'well and truly serve the

Commonwealth of Australia', instead of 'well and truly serve Her Majesty

the Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law'.(165)

29 April 1993 The Leader of the Opposition, Dr John Hewson, responded to

the Prime Minister's announcement of the Republic Advisory Committee. He

said that he formally committed the Liberal Party to a very active role in

the debate but that it was important to recognise that the Liberal platform

was committed to constitutional monarchy. It says:

Australian Liberalism means support for the constitutional

monarchy and freedom for all under the rule of law. It supports

the constitution not as a lifeless record of the compact of

federation but as a living framework capable of development by

discussion and consent.

He announced that that item would be on the agenda at the Federal

Council meeting planned for early August to start the process of

debate within the Party and he urged all of the party to play an

active part in the debate.

Dr Hewson said that the Liberal Party could not support the Keating

committee on the basis of its composition, its agenda or its deadlines and

that he would not be nominating a representative. He denied that the

committee was a genuine attempt at bipartisanship and said that it was a

blatant political exercise. Dr Hewson also said that 'I have no doubt,

given the shift of community attitudes and opinion, that the hardline

monarchist position is out of touch with the realities of Australia

today'.(166)

29 April 1993 The leader of the National Party, Tim Fischer, said, by way

of formal response to the Prime Minister's speech on the republic, that the

Parliamentary National Party, the Victorian Conference and the Federal

Management meeting of the National Party had all discussed the issue in

detail and that 'All three key organisations of the National Party

reaffirmed their strong support for a progressive constitutional

monarchy.'(167)

30 April 1993 The National Party urged all Australians to think very

carefully before tampering with the constitution and said that it would be

playing a very active part in the debate about the republic. The National

Party said that the 'so-called minimalist position' was far more radical

than it may seem as the constitution, literally read, gives very wide

powers to the Governor-General and only convention restricted the effective

powers of the Governor-General. The leader of the National Party also

warned that any referendum must be carried by all six States as all States

would have to adopt consequential changes and amendments. If a particular

State voted 'NO' the State Government and the Parliament would face a very

real dilemma.

(W)e have a system under the Constitutional Monarchy which works

extremely well. It is an important factor behind the tolerance

and cohesion which have always been a hallmark of Australian

society. To argue the case for a Republicanism, means arguing the

case that it is a better alternative.(168)

30 April 1993 The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Richard Goodhew expressed

cautious support for Australia becoming a republic.(169)

30 April 1993 The former leaders of the youth wings of the Liberal Party

and the ALP made a joint appeal to Mr Keating to include young people in

the republican debate.(170)

1 May 1993 The new leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Cheryl

Kernot, attacked as a 'cop-out' the minimalist position advocated by the

Prime Minister and called for the consideration of questions such as the

role of the States in a republic, the prior occupation of the continent by

Aborigines and the reserve powers of the Governor-General.(171)

1 May 1993 Sir Ninian Stephen said that the Constitutional Centenary

Foundation would not prepare a specific options paper on a republic for the

Federal Opposition, but the Foundation would examine the republic issue as

part of a broader study on constitutional change in Australia. The inquiry

could take up to four years and would be wider than the more narrowly

focused Republican Advisory Committee.(172)

5 May 1993 A Liberal Party committee comprising Dr John Hewson, John

Howard, Andrew Peacock, Rod Kemp, Senator Robert Hill, Daryl Williams and

Andrew Robb was established to review the Liberal platform. The National

Party announced that it would not be represented on the committee.(173)

5 May 1993 The Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett said that he wanted

Professor Geoffrey Blainey to represent the States on the Prime Minister's

Republic Advisory Committee.(174)

5 May 1993 An AGB McNair survey found that 83 per cent of Australians want

to elect a president themselves, 53 per cent believed a future head of

state should have a role with greater power, 38 per cent wanted the head of

state to have a mainly ceremonial role and nine per cent did not know.(175)

5 May 1993 Mr Kennett told Parliament that while he privately believed

Australia should remain a constitutional monarchy, it was important for the

Victorian community to participate in the republican debate.(176)

7 May 1993 John Howard said that he would not 'commit suicide' if Australia

becomes a republic tomorrow. 'I am an Australian above anything else. I

always have been and I will die being an Australian before anything else.

But that is not really the issue. It is a question of what is the better

form of Government for the Australian people'.(177)

13 May 1993 The Republic Advisory Committee issued a 15 page issues paper

designed to stimulate comment.(178)

21 May 1993 The Northern Territory Legislative Assembly held a formal

debate on republicanism but no vote was taken on the issue. Most speakers

supported republicanism of some kind (with the exception of MLA's Fred

Finch and Rick Setter) but a motion supporting the Prime Minister's

initiative failed on party lines.(179)

25 May 1993 The Prime Minister announced that Namoi Dougall and Dr Glyn

Davis were appointed as the State/Territory Government representatives on

the Republic Advisory Committee. All States and Territories were also

invited to submit comments to the Committee in response to an Issues Paper

released earlier in the month.(180)

14 May 1993 Dr Hewson told Parliament that 'key members of the ALP wanted

to abolish the States and the Senate and water down the reserve powers of

the head of state, not just replace the Queen with an Australian.'(181)

17 May 1993 Dr Hewson said the Federal Government would want to take

Australia out of the Commonwealth if voters supported a republic.(182)

27 May 1993 Opposition frontbencher, Dr David Kemp, said that the Prime

Minister's headlong rush toward a republic was driven by an obsessive

hatred of the British origins of Australia's political institutions, law

and language and risked dividing the nation. 'We do not need to deny our

British heritage and its symbols in order to move beyond it into the

future.'(183)

27 May 1993 The federal Liberal Party deputy leader, Dr Michael Wooldridge,

said he suspected that Australia would become a republic during his

lifetime but rejected that it was inevitable.(184)

28 May 1993 The inaugural meeting of the Republic Advisory Committee took

place on 27 May 1993. The full committee was expected to meet four times

before September when it was to deliver a report on options for a republic

to the Government. Several public meetings were to be held in capital

cities and country towns.(185)

4 June 1993 Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy appointed Tony

Abbott, a former advisor to Dr Hewson, as its salaried executive

director.(186)

5 June 1993 A former High Court Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs, said that

once the Office of President was established it would inevitably be

politicised and that this would create a series of constitutional dangers,

including the danger that the nation might proceed down the road to

dictatorship.(187)

7 June 1993 The Republic Advisory Committee advised that they would visit

Brisbane, Townsville, Cairns, Toowoomba. Hobart, Launceston, Melbourne,

Geelong, Albury, Perth, Bunbury, Kalgoorlie, Port Hedland, Darwin, Alice

Springs, Whyalla, Adelaide, Canberra, Wagga, Tamworth, Lismore, Newcastle

and Wollongong. Consultation would include public hearings wherever

possible.(188)

9 June 1993 The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Gareth Evans, assured

the Commonwealth Secretary-General that an Australian republic would not

leave the Commonwealth.(189)

13 June 1993 The Australian Republican Movement and the Australian

Conservation Foundation launched a campaign to have the Queen's Birthday

weekend abolished in favour of a national 'Wattle Day' in September.(190)

15 June 1993 The Leader of the Opposition, Dr John Hewson, said that

support for a republic would depend on the Prime Minister Paul Keating and

other advocates of constitutional change providing clear evidence existing

arrangements were flawed, inappropriate and unworkable. He said the

nation's freedom, independence and stability had to be protected and the

onus put firmly on 'the proponents of constitutional change that they will

not end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.'(191)

18 June 1993 The Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane, Peter Hollingworth,

warned that Mr Keating's republican push risked dividing the nation and

warned of the potential for providing a president with an undue amount of

power. He also urged Australians to question whether republicanism was part

of a political agenda.(192)

19 June 1993 A former Premier of NSW, Nick Greiner, warned the Liberal

Party that 'if we go to the 1996 election saying 'vote for us, we will

continue to ensure that there is no move to a republic', then in my view

that is a large step towards losing the election. He said a republic was

supported by at least two Liberal Premiers and a significant section of the

parliamentary Liberal Party.(193)

20 June 1993 At the NSW National Party State Conference in Wagga Wagga, Tim

Fischer said:

The Republic debate...;is on the national agenda and I have been

very proud of the National Party's steadfast and resolute role. I

am confident that the National Party will continue to provide a

sheet anchor role in this debate, it our duty to do so. We as a

party know where we stand on this issue. We oppose Keating's

republic.(194)

22 June 1993 The President of the WA Liberal Party, Bill Hassell, told the

Bulletin:

that he was personally committed not to the concept of nationhood

or one indissoluble Australia but to a belief that WA would be

far better off in a dozen ways if it was separate...;It need not

mean a state of war with the eastern states It could be a

perfectly co-operative relationship like the one Australia has

with New Zealand.(195)

23 June 1993 A former Premier of NSW, Nick Greiner warned fellow members of

the Liberal Party that they risked handing Prime Minister Keating a

'powerful weapon at the next election if they continued to oppose a

republic'. He said that it was open to Senator Bronwyn Bishop, John Howard,

and Peter Reith to take a 'short-term political win' by killing off the

republic but that it would be a 'pyrrhic' victory.(196)

30 June 1993 The leader of the Opposition, Dr John Hewson, in an interview

with Peter Couchman, said that it was not a mistake not to have joined the

Turnbull Committee as that was not a 'bipartisan attempt to deal with a

difficult issue' and that the so called minimal approach was a furphy.(197)

2 July 1993 Australians for Constitutional Monarchy held a meeting at

Sydney Town Hall to commemorate the centenary of the Central Federation

League. The speakers were Sir Harry Gibbs, Dame Leonie Kramer and Lloyd

Waddy QC.(198)

5 July 1993 A Victorian federal MP, Lindsay Tanner, of the left wing of the

ALP, rejected Mr Keating's minimalist approach and said that the 'focus of

the Left's position in this debate should be the assertion of the

principles of democracy-not the nationalist crusade for independence from

Britain.' He also said that the States were outdated and that there should

be a Bill of Rights.(199)

8 July 1993 Opposition spokesman on Industrial Relations, John Howard,

addressed the 46th Annual Council of the Australian Liberal Students'

Federation. He said:

My opposition to an Australian republic is a happy amalgam of

personal conviction and political judgement...;By all means those

in the Liberal Party who genuinely believe a republic would be in

Australia's long term interests should argue their case both

internally and externally.(200)

8 July 1993 Blinky Bill was officially unveiled at a ceremony to mark the

second anniversary of the Australian Republican Movement as the movements

national treasure, standard bearer and icon.(201)

10 July 1993 The Australian Conservation Foundation said that the Republic

Advisory Committee should examine a wide range of constitutional reforms

including the issue of State and federal rights in relation to the

environment.(202)

10 July 1993 The Liberal Party's Federal Executive 'killed off moves to

change the party's constitution, which supports the monarchy.'(203)

11 July 1993 The Federal President of the Young Liberals, Trent Zimmerman,

said that Liberals should be free to follow their consciences on whether

they supported the push for an Australian republic. The Young Liberal

leaders drafted a resolution to be put to the Party's Federal Council

meeting in August proposing that the republican issue be a conscience

matter for members.(204)

14 July 1993 The Australian Chamber of Commerce chief executive said that

the republican debate should be widened to include state and federal powers

in relation to industrial relations, educations, job training, immigration

and land rights.(205)

19 July 1993 The Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, in its submission

to the Prime Minister's Republican Advisory Committee, said that there were

strong reasons to think that a referendum would be ineffective to cut links

with the crown and to turn Australia into a republic as the preamble to the

Constitution declares that the purpose of the document is to establish 'one

indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the crown.' The submission argued

that the federal compact might not survive the elimination of this

fundamental condition and that minimal change was not viable.(206)

19 July 1993 Seventy-nine per cent of Australians questioned said that they

wanted a republican head of State to be elected by popular vote.(207)

21 July 1993 An Age editorial said that the constitutional changes required

for Australia to become a republic would not be minimal and that those

Australians who supported a move to a republic needed to understand

this.(208)

22 July 1993 The Premier of Western Australia, Richard Court, announced

that within a month he would appoint a committee of eminent West

Australians to examine the ramifications for WA of the Federal Government's

push to a republic. He said that members would be drawn from different

sides of politics and different age groups.(209)

25 July 1993 The Federal Government instructed the Governor-General not to

forward any more requests to use the prefix 'royal' to Buckingham Palace

for approval.(210)

25 July 1993 The Nationals' Senate leader, Ron Boswell, told delegates at

the National Party's State Conference in Brisbane that:

If Paul Keating has his way, Australia will soon have a new

Constitution, giving all real power to the national government.

The States will be little more than administrators of policies

set in Canberra-if they exist at all. He said that the National

Party wants nothing to do with the Prime Minister's push to make

Australia a republic.(211)

26 July 1993 Delegates to the Victorian and the Western Australian branches

of the Liberal Party, at their annual conferences, passed resolutions

rejecting the republic.(212)

30 July 1993 Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett, in an address to the Samuel

Griffith Society in Melbourne entitled 'The Crown and the States', said

that section 128 of the Federal Constitution was unsuited to the task of

removing the monarchy because 'The Constitution' was not an Act but clause

9 of The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. Thus 'without

some imaginative interpretation' section 128 might amend 'the Constitution'

but not the covering clauses of the Act - clauses 1 to 8. Since the passing

of the Australia Acts 1986 the United Kingdom could not alter those

provisions and amendment would require the unanimous participation of State

Parliaments. A second difficulty was that the Crown was implicit in the

constitution and it was arguable that to remove the Crown was not to amend

the constitution but to change it for another and that this could not be

done by section 128. The third legal barrier concerned the position of

State Constitutions and State Governors.

31 July 1993 Prime Minister Keating, in a speech at the Corowa Shire

Council Centenary Dinner at the Corowa RSL Club said 'I am for a republic.

Not because I am against Britain-I like Britain very much...;Nor am I

against the British monarch...;Nor am I against the British Commonwealth of

Nations...;Nor am I for the republic because I am against the States...;I

am for the republic not for what I am against, but what I am for; not for

what a republic will throw away, but for what a republic can deliver: It

can deliver a new sense of unity and national pride in which Australians of

this and future generations can share...;In the end, as with Federation, it

will be the people of Australia who decide.'

1 August 1993 The leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Cheryl

Kernot, said there were valid arguments for abolishing the States and

replacing them with regional governments and that the Democrats were

setting up a Task Force to examine possible models for a two-tier system of

government. Senator Kernot also said that the Constitutional debate should

be widened to include a Bill of Rights, appropriate/democratic electoral

systems and the role of Upper Houses, especially the right to block

supply.(213)

9 August 1993 A Saulwick Age Poll found that in the four months since the

last poll, support for the monarchy had gone up four points to 34 per cent.

Support for Australia becoming a republic dropped correspondingly four

points to 62 per cent.(214)

16 August 1993 The Australian Republican Movement submission to the

Republic Advisory Committee said that

All references to the monarch must be removed from the Australian

Constitution.

The term president should be used for the new, non-executive head of State,

who should be separate from the government.

The only qualification for appointment should be Australian citizenship.

The president should be elected by a two-thirds majority of both Houses of

Parliament.

The reserve powers of the president should be codified.

The future of the Governors should be decided by each State.

The Constitution should be rewritten in plain English.(215)

17 August 1993 The NSW Young Liberal Movement said that 'Young Liberals, as

young Australians, see our nation's future as a republic' and that 'Our

Constitution must recognise Australia's identity into the 21st century and

beyond.' They said that they hoped that 'the parliamentary party will now

reconsider its position and support the republic'.(216)

28 August 1993 The NSW Treasurer, Peter Collins, said it was Australia's

destiny to become a republic. 'Australians should be embarrassed by the

"distant devotion of Anglophiles" to the British monarchy, Mr Collins said.

The rest of the world must find it bizarre that Australians were resisting

their "natural and inevitable destiny" to form a republic.'(217)

30 August 1993 The Liberal Party Federal Council refused to allow party

members a conscience vote on the republic and said that:

it had confidence in Australia's existing constitutional system,

but that no Australian institution was immutable. While entering

into the debate constructively we are totally opposed to the

hidden agenda that Labor has in supporting the move to a

republic, including its long-term plans to undermine the power of

the states, to abolish the Senate, change the flag, and eliminate

the reserve power of the Governor-General, the motion

declared.(218)

30 August 1993 Mr Keating said that he was not interested in becoming

president. 'It's a position I would never accept,' he said. 'Having been

Prime Minister, it would not be right to look over another PM's shoulder.

Such delusions would only compromise my effectiveness in trying to spirit

this change through.'(219)

30 August 1993 Author Tom Keneally, actor Kym Wilson and designer Jenny Kee

'launched' the wattle as an Australian Republican Movement symbol in the

Royal Botanic Gardens.(220)

31 August 1993 The ACTU congress supported the Federal Government's push

for Australia to become a republic and called for unions to play an active

role in the republican debate.(221)

7 September 1993 On the eve of Prime Minister Keating's visit to Britain,

senior British sources made it clear that the republican debate was a

matter for Australia and that they hoped the visit would strengthen ties

between the two countries.(222)

9 September 1993 The Labor Premier of South Australia, Lynn Arnold,

announced the State Government's support for a Republic of Australia and

support for a republican system in the State.(223)

13 September 1993 The Governor-General was interviewed by former Prime

Minister Bob Hawke and asked about whether the way the position of

President was filled would have 'a considerable significance on the likely

discharge of the position?' Mr Hayden replied:

Absolutely. I will risk my arm by going further as

Governor-General, and say this: the present system works well. It

allows us to have stable government in this country because the

head of state is aware of the restraints under which he must

function. They are understood all round and they have worked

since Federation quite effectively. If we move away from that and

there is no restraint, then my apprehension would be that we

could go through periods-intense periods sometimes-of quite

unstable government. Now I am sure that the people who are

interested at a policy making level in the direction of a

Republic, are aware of this because it is obvious. But there is a

potential obstruction to transferring the system from what it is

now, to the same sort of system with a President as head of

state, appointed in the same way as now. And that is that

overwhelmingly the opinion polls show that the public-between 70

and 80 per cent of them, which is much higher than those who want

a Republic-want to select a President themselves. That is

inherently a problem.(224)

15 September 1993 A survey of federal parliamentarians found that 66 per

cent favoured a republic, including 98 per cent of the ALP and 26 per cent

of the Coalition. The survey also recorded 60 per cent of voters in all

States supported a republic including a majority in all States.(225)

18 September 1993 Prime Minister Keating had an audience with the Queen at

Balmoral Castle. He issued a press release which stated that he had:

explained to Her Majesty that, notwithstanding the deep respect

and warm affection felt towards her by the Australian people,

there was a growing feeling that Australia should make the

necessary constitutional changes to allow the appointment of an

Australian head of state. I said such a move was seen as

necessary to establish clearly Australia's identity as an

independent nations...;The Australian Government's view was that,

if approved by the Australian people at a referendum, it would be

appropriate for Australia to become a republic by the centenary

of Federation in 2001. I told Her Majesty that, in such a

situation, Australia would remain a member of the Commonwealth of

Nations, and that the Australian people would warmly welcome

visits to Australia by Her Majesty as Head of the Commonwealth

and as the Queen of the United Kingdom. Her Majesty authorised me

to say that she would, of course, act on the advice of her

Australian Ministers, as she always has, and on any decision made

by the Australian people.(226)

27 September 1993 At the end of a two week overseas trip, Mr Keating, said

that the Sydney Olympics in September 2000 should be opened by an

Australian head of state. 'I think the world would wonder, would they not,

if Australia's Games are opened by the constitutional head of another

nation,' Mr Keating said on Channel Nine's Sunday program.(227)

29 September 1993 The Prime Minister announced that Prince Charles would

visit NSW, Tasmania, Western Australia and Queensland from 25 January 1994.

He said that he had issued the invitation for the visit during his meeting

with the Queen at Balmoral.(228)

29 September 1993 The latest Newspoll figures showed that 46 per cent of

Australians favoured a republic, 36 per cent were against it and 18 per

cent were uncommitted.(229)

29 September 1993 The Prime Minister said in question time that

My views on the flag have been known for a very long period of

time and that is the symbols of this nation and its identity

ought to be clear to all Australians and the rest of the world.

And that's why I believe Australia should move towards an

Australian head of State and, naturally in the course of that,

all of the symbols of our national identity will change with

it.(230)

1 October 1993 The Senate passed a citizenship oath in the following terms:

From this time forward (under God) I pledge my loyalty to

Australia and its people whose democratic beliefs I share whose

rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and

obey.

The old pledge was in the following terms

I swear by almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true

allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of

Australia, her heirs and successors according to law, and that I

will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my

duties as an Australian citizen.(231)

5 October 1993 The Republic Advisory Committee reported that:

(t)he only constitutional change...;required to make Australia a

completely republican system of government is to remove the

monarch...;In order to replace the monarch with a republican head

of state, the Constitution would need to be amended in only three

substantive ways:

establishing the office of a new Australian head of

state (including the method of appointment and

removal);

providing for the powers of the head of state; and

providing for the States.(232)

The committee concluded that there was much to be said for a national

figure who could represent the nation as a whole, both to Australians and

to the rest of the world.

The committee said that leaving the appointment of the head of state to the

Government of the day is the option which most closely reflects the current

practice but that it may be viewed as a partisan practice if left to the

Prime Minister alone. If the people were involved through their

parliamentary representatives there are a number of issues to be resolved

in relation to voting and the nomination of candidates. The committee said

that while popular election is democratic, it may encourage the head of

state to believe that he or she has a popular mandate to exercise the

powers of that office.

The committee was of the view that if popular election is chosen as the

conventions and principles of government is to be maintained, the

Constitution should be amended so as clearly to define and delimit the

powers of the head of state.

The committee was of the view that there were no strong reasons why a new

head of state should not continue to exercise the same kind of 'government'

functions on the advice of the Government of the day as were presently

exercised by the Governor-General. However, in order to eliminate any

uncertainty, the constitution should provide that in the exercise of these

powers the head of state acts on ministerial advice. In relation to the

reserve powers the committee said that some attempt to codify the reserve

powers in the interests of political certainty should be made.

In relation to the States, the committee accepted the conclusion of the

Acting Solicitor-General that in order to minimise legal debate on these

matters it would be sensible for amendments creating a republic to deal

specifically with the position of the States. The committee concluded that

Australia could become a republic and that the States could be left free to

choose their own course.

In an accompanying press release the committee said that the report

'demonstrates that a republic is achievable without threatening Australia's

cherished democratic traditions'.

5 October 1993 The Prime Minister received the report of the Republic

Advisory Committee (the Turnbull Report). Mr Keating advised that the

Government did not have a timetable for a republic but hoped to see a

republican structure in place by the turn of the century and that it was

essential that people have time to consider the issues. The Prime Minister

also announced the establishment of a small working party of senior

Ministers to consider the issues and develop a paper for cabinet in the

first half of 1994. The working party included Gareth Evans, Kim Beazley,

Michael Lavarch, Graham Richardson, Ros Kelly and Frank Walker.

5 October 1993 Following the release of the Turnbull report, Opposition

leader John Hewson said that the real question was not how we achieve

change but whether such change was either warranted or desirable.(233)

5 October 1993 The Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM) issued a

press release which described the Turnbull Report as fundamentally flawed

because:

1. It presupposes that a republic is the only option to our present

monarchy.

2. The process of proceeding by committee approved and funded by Mr

Keating was wrong in principle when every citizen's vote is equal to

every other! The musings of the elite are not a substitute for the

voice of the people.

3. The report is vast in length-far from the simple changes with TIPPEX

we were told were possible, the incidental changes needed are vast,

legally complex and highly contentious, apart from the major question

of, "Why change at all?"

ACM also raised the position of some States that wished to remain

monarchies and said that the 'very length of the report belies its bland

assurances that change is "easy".'(234)

11 October 1993 A poll published in the Bulletin magazine found that 48 per

cent of people (up three points) believed Australia should become a

republic, 42 per cent (up six points) opposed such a change and 10 per cent

were undecided.(235)

23 October 1993 Addressing the Commonwealth leaders in Limassol, the Queen

said:

Nowadays, I have enough experience, not least in racing, to

restrain me from laying any money down on how many countries will

be in the Commonwealth in 40 years time, who they will be, and

where the meeting will be held. I will certainly not be betting

on how many of you will have the head of the Commonwealth as your

head of State. I suppose that the only reasonably safe bet is

that there will be three absentees - Prince Phillip, Britannia

and myself.(236)

The Queen also said:

In a family of 50 [nations], it is hardly surprising if some of

you have constitutional problems at home to resolve. To those who

have I wish you well.(237)

24 October 1993 A Herald Sun survey found that 77 per cent of readers were

against Australia becoming a republic and 23 per cent were in favour.(238)

3 November 1993 Australians for Constitutional Monarchy wrote to the Prime

Minister attaching a legal opinion by Sir Harry Gibbs which questioned some

of the assumptions of the Turnbull Report. The opinion was also signed by

Justice Ken Handley of the NSW Court of Appeal, ex-Supreme Court Justices

Jack Lee and David Yeldam, Professor Ivan Shearer and other members of the

Legal Committee of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. In Sir Harry's

opinion, the Turnbull report was wrong to suggest that the legal

complexities of becoming a republic were readily soluble. The opinion

states that abolishing the monarchy in all the States would require a

change in the Australia Act which would require the agreement of all the

States which would be almost impossible to obtain. Sir Harry also said that

there was 'another, deeper question of political principle at stake'-The

Australian people agreed to federate under the Crown and if that bond is to

be extinguished 'there must be a new agreement to unite'.(239)

6 November 1993 Opposition spokesman on Industrial Relations, John Howard,

addressed the Samuel Griffiths Society Conference in Fremantle. He said

Paul Keating is the first Australian Prime Minister to openly and

consistently advocate turning Australia into a republic. He is

Australia's best known republican.

Therefore, his views on the subject and the nature of his

participation in the debate are crucial. Suggestions that the

republican debate be de-politicised are both naive and illogical.

This is all the more so as the Prime Minister has sought since

this debate began, to politicise Australian patriotism...;

It is neither reactionary nor old-fashioned to adopt the Burkean

view that institutions should not be discarded unless they have

clearly failed...;

Although the republican momentum has slowed, it would be foolish

to think for a moment that the debate has been won.

I suspect it has entered a long, lethargic stage. That is worse

news for republicans than for those opposed to change.

Australians no longer see the change to a republic as a simple

thing without risk. There is greater recognition of the

complexity of change...;

As we move to the next phase of the debate, there are two lines

of argument which the defenders of the present Constitution

should further emphasise and develop.

The first of these is the simple and positive argument that the

present arrangements for a head of state deliver better than any

alternative available under a republic a politically neutral head

of state...;

The other argument which should be more strenuously developed is

to draw attention to the way in which an almost ritualistic use

of the external affairs power by the present government is bit by

bit handing over Australian sovereignty to foreign committees and

institutions.(240)

14 November 1993 Senator Rod Kemp asked Senator Gareth Evans whether the

Government planned to make Australia a republic by 2000. Senator Evans

replied that 'It is still the plan of the Government to generate a sensible

and intelligent debate on it and to encourage others to do likewise, with

that (change by 2000) being the result that we hope will emerge from it,

but we will have to wait and see.'(241)

17 November 1993 The Australian reported that Justice Michael Kirby,

President of the NSW Court of Appeal, at the launch of the South Australian

Council of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, said that a republic

could cause a destabilising tension between president and prime minister

instead of the prime minister being the 'undisputed top dog'. Justice Kirby

rejected the 'inevitability' of a republic and 'the call back into the

bosom of primitive South Seas nationalism...;it is so passe.'

19 November 1993 The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Senator

Nick Bolkus, argued that it was inevitable that Australia would become a

republic. The inevitability was based on the changing world environment and

the fundamental change that had taken place in Australia through

immigration.(242)

28 December 1993 The Morgan poll showed that 44 per cent of Australians

thought Australia should become a republic (down eight points since April),

48 per cent wanted a monarchy (up 10 points) and eight per cent were

undecided (down two points).(243)

26 January 1994 Prince Charles, who had arrived in Sydney for a tour on 24

January, gave an Australia Day speech. He said that whether Australia

became a republic or not was something only Australians could decide. He

said it was not surprising there were those who would wish for a change in

Australia's institution, adding 'and perhaps they are right'. 'By the very

nature of things it is not surprising that there are differing views-some

people will doubtless prefer the stability of a system that has been

reasonably well tried and tested over the years, while others will see real

advantages in doing things differently,' he said. 'The point I want to make

here, and for everyone to be perfectly clear about, is that this is

something which only you-the Australian people-can decide. Personally, I

happen to think that it is the sign of a mature and self-confident nation

to debate those issues and to use the democratic process to re-examine the

way in which you want to face the future'.(244)

7 February 1994 Prince Charles's private secretary, Commander Richard

Aylard, said that 'The prince would not regard it in any way as a personal

failure or tragedy if [Australians] do vote for a republic.'(245)

17 February 1994 Labor frontbencher Kim Beazley, in the inaugural Sir John

Monash Lecture at Monash University, said that the debate needed to focus

on the functions of the head of state, that there were strong arguments

that the reserve powers should be codified and that '[w]e need a more

broadly based procedure to select our Governor-General' which involved some

more direct expression of national opinion.(246)

31 March 1994 The new head of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy,

Kerry Jones, called on Australian women to join the fight to retain the

Queen as head of state.(247)

9 April 1994 Mr Justice Terry Higgins of the Federal and ACT Supreme Courts

said that the introduction of a republic was possible by legislative

amendment of the Crown Act, replacing references to the Queen, the Crown

and the Governor-General with another office holder. Justice Higgins said

that while such legislation was possible, it would create a furore and

would be politically unacceptable. 'It would be preferable to do it by

referendum and constitutional amendments,' he said.(248)

15 April 1994 The federal Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, suggested that

the rules governing the monarchy breached human rights, in that royal

succession discriminated against women by favouring the oldest male child

over older female children and the rule that the monarch should be a member

of the Church of England discriminated on religious grounds. The national

convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Lloyd Waddy, QC, said

that Mr Lavarch had raised 'old issues' settled by popular vote at

Federation.(249)

16 May 1994 The ACT Opposition Leader, Kate Carnell, called for a two-part

referendum on the republic. The first question would be 'Do you want the

present constitutional monarchy or change to a federal republic?' The

second question would ask how people wanted the head of state chosen:

popular election, two-thirds of a federal joint sitting or two-thirds of a

joint federal and state parliamentary sitting. She thought a republic was

inevitable and objected to the present religious and sex-discrimination in

the selection of the present head of state.(250)

23 May 1994 Alexander Downer became Opposition Leader, defeating Dr Hewson

at a special meeting of the Parliamentary party.

27 May 1994 The Opposition Leader, Alexander Downer, told the SBS

'Dateline' program that:

The reason I'm not in favour of a republic is that the change

from our existing system to a republic would just, frankly, be

far too complex. I don't think in the end it will be easy at

all...;to rewrite the Australian Constitution. If it is ever to

happen, I don't think a Labor Government would ever find it easy

to do. That's why, if you look at the history of constitutional

reform in Australia, it's the Liberal Party not the Labor Party

that's delivered it.(251)

15 June 1994 The Prime Minister, Paul Keating, said that he did not think

the issues of changing the flag and the republic had to go together. 'I

have got an opinion on the flag but I don't have a plan for the flag,' Mr

Keating said on Nine Network's A Current Affair.(252)

27 June 1994 Prince Charles said that he would rather be seen as 'the

defender of faith' than 'defender of the faith'. On the 25th anniversary of

his investiture as Prince of Wales, he said 'I happen to believe that the

Catholic subjects of the sovereign are as important as Protestants, not to

mention the Islamic, Hindu and Zoroastrian'.(253)

30 June 1994 London newspapers proclaimed doom for the Royal Family as a

result of Prince Charles admitting that he had cheated on his wife, the

Princess of Wales. The Executive Director of Australians for Constitutional

Monarch, Tony Abbott expressed disappointment with Prince Charles's

comments but dismissed the idea that Royal misdeeds had an impact on the

republican debate. Support for the institution was not the same as

supporting the office-holder, he said.(254)

4 July 1994 Andrew Parker a former advisor to Dr Hewson, confirmed that the

Liberal Party had a secret cell of 100 members called the New Republic who

were dedicated to opposing the official pro-monarchy party line in favour

of an Australian republic. The group was said to be working closely with

the chief executive officer of the Australian Republican Movement, Mark

Ryan, on ways to encourage high profile 'closet Liberal republicans' to

come out and voice their support for a republic.(255)

6 July 1994 The Australian Liberal Students Federation confirmed the

commitment of the Liberal Students for the present constitutional

arrangements and said that their organisation represented more than three

times the number of NSW Young Liberals in the State than the NSW Young

Liberals.(256)

6 July 1994 Former Liberal leader John Hewson denounced internal criticism

of Liberal republicans as 'McCarthy-like' and reminiscent of a 'Gestapo

state', describing suggestions that they were disloyal as ridiculous.(257)

6 July 1994 Mr Downer said he was happy to debate the constitutional

changes required to establish an Australian republic but that he did not

think such changes were worth the bother or the effort.(258)

6 July 1994 It was reported that more than half of the NSW Liberal Ministry

backed the push for an Australian republic or considered it inevitable. In

a Herald survey of the 20 members of the Cabinet, only Ethnic Affairs

Minister Michael Photios openly supported retaining the monarchy.(259)

7 July 1994 It was further reported that more than half the Liberals in the

federal shadow Cabinet appeared to believe that Australia would inevitably

become a republic. More than half of the South Australian Cabinet either

supported a republic or believed it was inevitable, the Tasmanian Cabinet

was evenly divided, the West Australian Cabinet was unanimously opposed to

a republic. In Victoria only the Premier and two ministers were prepared to

express an opinion, and that was to oppose a republic.(260)

7 July 1994 Opposition leader Alexander Downer reaffirmed that the

Opposition was prepared to debate any detailed proposal by the Federal

Government for a republic. But he did not accept the inevitability of it

happening and was personally opposed to the change. Mr Downer said the

constitution had delivered extraordinary political stability and the change

which would be necessary to establish a republic would create massive

upheaval and division.(261)

8 July 1994 The ACT Liberal leader, Ms Kate Carnell, accused the

Australians for Constitutional Monarchy of using threatening tactics

against her because she was perceived as being pro-republican. Ms Carnell

described herself as an emotional republican but an intellectual

constitutional monarchist. It was suggested that Australians for

Constitutional Monarchy would vote against her in the ACT election if she

did not support the monarchy. Ms Carnell said the debate about a republic

had been hijacked by Mr Keating in an attempt to centralise power. 'Hence,

although I maintain an open mind on the question of a republic, I would

vote no to a Keating style republic', she said.(262)

9 July 1994 It was reported that the Government's blue-print for a republic

was not going to be available for up to five years. Instead the

Government's response to the Turnbull report was to be a discussion paper

that canvassed options and was due for release before the end of the year.

The aim of the discussion paper would be to stimulate debate.(263)

9 July 1994 Mr Downer said that the Turnbull report only put forward a

range of options for a republic but made no specific recommendation and

that Mr Keating was apparently planning to produce yet more options. Mr

Downer said that Mr Keating 'must reveal his real agenda for a republic to

Australians.'(264)

9 July 1994 Former Victorian Premier Sir Rupert Hamer launched the

Australian Republican Movement branch in Ballarat, the first outside the

capital cities. He said that he was 'on public record as believing that

Australia will eventually have its own head of state.(265)

11 July 1994 Opposition Leader Alexander Downer was quoted as saying that

'With greater maturity you understand that it [the Royal family] is not the

issue'. 'The issue is the constitution. They're irrelevant to it. That is a

red herring.' He was also quoted as saying 'The Queen of England doesn't

mean anything to most people in Australia. "Quaint, nice woman and all

that, but English"'. Mr Downer subsequently denied that he had described

the Queen as quaint and said 'the Governor-General is the de facto head of

state of the country and the Queen is only in a very theoretical sense the

head of state...;This is a debate about rewriting the Australian

Constitution. It will, in the end, be a choice between our present

constitution and a rewritten constitution. It's not a debate about the

Royal family or the personalities of the Royal family.'(266)

12 July 1994 Prime Minister Paul Keating said that Mr Downer had failed to

stand by his view that the monarchy was 'the foundation stone' of the

constitution".(267)

13 July 1994 The Australian Democrats called for the republican debate to

be broadened to include a shake-up in power sharing between all levels of

governments and redrawing of state boundaries. After a poll of members,

Democrats Leader Cheryl Kernot declared the party was officially

pro-republican. She said that an Australian head of state should be elected

by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Parliament to prevent a partisan

figure from winning the position through popular election.(268)

18 July 1994 The federal Coalition said that it would not unveil any policy

on a republic until after the Prime Minister released details of his own

plans for constitutional change.(269)

25 July 1994 Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser suggested that a republic

was inevitable. He cited as reasons the behaviour of the heirs to the

British throne and the attitude of young Australians. He said that the

Australian Constitution would need to be almost entirely rewritten if the

country became a republic but that this was no reason to shy away from the

issue.(270)

31 July 1994 The NSW Division of the Liberal Party passed a motion

reaffirming support for the 1993 Federal Council resolution on the

Constitution/Republic. That resolution expressed respect and confidence in

the existing constitutional system which 'has worked extremely well and

delivered political stability to Australia for nearly a century'. The

Council said that they would enter into and be fully involved in the debate

but that the Labor Party has put the question of a republic on the national

agenda without making a compelling case for change and that it is the

Government's responsibility to provide a compelling case against the

existing arrangements and an equally compelling case for any

alternative.(271)

1 August 1994 The Opposition spokesman on Industrial Relations, John

Howard, said that the republic was a federal issue and the actions of State

Liberals should not undermine those of the Federal Coalition. He said that

those who supported changing the constitution could argue within the party

forums that the party should change its policy, but that once the policy

was set they were obliged to assent to it.(272)

6 August 1994 In a speech to Melbourne University students, Prime Minister

Keating said that Australia needed an appropriate head of state who stood

unambiguously for Australia, and who stood for the things Australians

believed in. He said that in the 1950's the British monarchy constituted a

significant element of Australia's national sentiment and national cohesion

and that the British monarchy commanded great respect, affection and

loyalty as Australian head of state.

But there is no denying that the British monarchy no longer

commands that respect, affection and loyalty...;It is equally

true that our interests have grown increasingly away from those

of Great Britain and that the proportion of our population who

have come from non-English -speaking backgrounds has dramatically

increased. And it is just as true that these trends will

continue.(273)

17 August 1994 The Australian Constitutional Monarchy, published by

Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy was launched. The book, edited by

Gareth Grainger and Kerry Jones, contained essays by the President of the

NSW Court of Appeal Justice Michael Kirby, a former Chief Justice of the

High Court Sir Harry Gibbs, former Queensland Senator Neville Bonner and

others.

22 August 1994 NSW Young Liberals passed three motions urging consideration

and debate about a republic at their national convention.(274)

29 August 1994 Former Opposition leader Dr John Hewson said that the

Liberal Party would become irrelevant unless it constructively considered

the possibility of constitutional reform including changing the head of

state. He said that under the influence of John Howard and NSW Liberal

backbencher Tony Abbott, there was 'basically a nod and a wink to say we

ain't moving on constitutional reform...;Maybe we can put up alternatives

to Keating on the republic. If we take a hard-line absolute defence of the

monarchy, we will be seen as irrelevant in Australia.'(275)

30 August 1994 South Australian Liberal Senator Baden Teague became the

first Liberal during the present debate to use Parliament to call for an

Australian head of state. He said:

I strongly believe that we should see a constitutional change

that would see an Australian head of state. Accordingly I think

it is quite inappropriate that Australia has as head of state, a

foreigner, a person who is not a citizen of Australia and who has

prior allegiances to the United Kingdom or in fact a range of

allegiances to some 12 or 14 countries, he said. The time has

come, I believe, for an Australian citizen to be the head of

state of Australia and for that person to have no other

allegiances but to Australia. In that way, our national symbol,

vested in the head of state, will be directly reflecting our

independence and sovereignty as the Australia nation.(276)

1 September 1994 The National President of the ALP, Mr Barry Jones, told

the National Press Club that the 'minimalist republic' was 'dead and

buried' 18 months ago and that he wanted a bolder recipe in which the

Constitution was amended essentially to reflect the reality of the exercise

of power.'(277)

7 October 1994 Dame Joan Sutherland addressed a lunch organised by

Australians for Constitutional Monarchy and said:

I was brought up having a British passport and it upsets me that

I don't have a British passport now...;When I go to the post

office to be interviewed by a Chinese or an Indian-I'm not

particularly racist-but I find it ludicrous, when I've had a

passport for 40 years'. She said I think it would be a great

shame to go to all that trouble of changing to a republic to find

that it doesn't work. Why bother?(278)

8 October 1994 The Federal Government postponed until at least early next

year, an announcement of its preferred options for an Australian republic.

Mr Keating said that 'pressure of work' meant that he was unable to deal

with the response this year, but vowed to 'say something about it in the

life of this Parliament'.(279)

3 November 1994 According to a Herald Saulwick poll, 45 per cent of those

who intended to vote Liberal at the next election said they supported an

Australian republic within the Commonwealth and 42 per cent supported the

retention of the Queen as head of state. Nine per cent of Liberal voters

said they supported a republic outside the Commonwealth. Fifty-two per cent

of National Party voters supported a republic and 47 per cent supported

keeping the monarchy. The poll found 66 per cent support for a

republic-either within or outside the Commonwealth, an increase of three

percentage points since the last poll in February. 31 per cent of voters

supported the retention of the monarchy, a fall of four percentage points

since February.(280)

10 November 1994 Opposition Leader Alexander Downer said that:

(W)e believe in holding a 'People's Convention' where Australians

will be able to express their views about the future of our

Constitution, and can participate in the progressive evolution of

the Australian Constitution...;we would place tremendous

importance on the People's Convention ...; and take

extraordinarily seriously any recommendations it came forward

with...;The only way you will ever achieve Constitutional change

in this country-and we've seen this since 1901 ...;is by building

a national consensus. And that is precisely what we're proposing

to do in relation to the evolution of our Constitution...;I'll

announce the details of how the Constitutional Convention will

work in the fullness of time which will be towards the, or at the

end of next week...;(281)

11 November 1994 The Leader of the National Party said the party would

continue to stand in strong defence of the Australian Constitution, against

the government's plans for a republic.

There are certainly aspects of our Constitution which deserve

review-the foreign affairs powers of the Commonwealth in regard

to international treaties for a start-but that is a long way from

making wholesale change to a republic, Mr Fischer said. Nor

should we allow ourselves to be sidelined in silly arguments

about the behaviour of the Royal Family. There is a legitimate

place for debate and discussion about our Constitution as we

approach its centenary, but it is a domestic debate, Mr Fischer

said.(282)

19 November 1994 The Leader of the Opposition, Alexander Downer, announced

further details of his proposal for a constitutional convention. If the

Coalition were elected, the convention would be elected in 1997 to 'conduct

a 100 year review of the Australian Constitution'. Half of its delegates

would be elected by the community and the other half appointed 'by virtue

of the elected positions that they already hold'. Special encouragement

would be given to young people, women and people of ethnic background to

stand. The convention would be asked to look at the role of the head of

state in the constitution, including implications of change for the role of

the States; the allocation of legislative and executive powers and

functions between Federal and State Governments, including areas of overlap

and duplication: the use of the external affairs power, and four-year

terms. Mr Downer promised that a coalition government would put significant

recommendations approved by a broad consensus of the convention to a

referendum but he noted that the Government would 'reserve the right to

campaign for or against any referendum proposal'. He also said that in

advancing the proposal 'we are in no way changing our current policy in

relation to Mr Keating's proposal for a republic'.(283)

24 November 1994 Malcolm Fraser wrote that:

It is idle to pretend that the recent difficulties surrounding

the Royal Family have not had a deep impact on the family's

standing within Australia...;The young Royals have a demonstrated

ability to achieve publicity in ways that do not enhance their

standing within Australia and which could, in an untimely way,

have a dramatic and adverse effect on a referendum vote.(284)

12 January 1995 The Young Liberal Movement, at their national convention,

defeated a motion supporting a constitutional monarchy and supported a

motion urging the federal Liberal Party to put forward their preferred

model for a future republic.(285)

17 January 1995 The West Australian constitutional committee reported that

a 'minimalist republic' would not be detrimental to the State and that

secession was not the answer to the West's problems with Canberra.(286)

26 January 1995 An Age AGB McNair Australia Day poll, revealed that most

people would not support Australia becoming a republic if they were unable

to elect the head of state. The poll found 52 per cent of people favoured a

republic, 38 per cent opposed a republic and 11 per cent were

undecided.(287)

30 January 1995 John Howard became Leader of the Opposition after Alexander

Downer stood aside.

17 February 1995 The Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, agreed that the

issue was in a state of flux. 'If we had a referendum tomorrow I would

still vote no to a change. If we had a referendum in five years' time well

you'll have to come to The Lodge in five years' time and ask me how I vote,

I just don't know.' Mr Howard said he accepted that the idea of an

Australian head of state was a totemic issue for many people. 'Now if there

comes a time when most Australians clearly felt comfortable with a

republic, I will accept that with the greatest of goodwill because it is

what my fellow Australians want and I will be quite happy with that. I am

not going to slash my wrists if it occurs.'(288)

10 March 1995 In Bonn, Prime Minister Keating expressed his preference for

a system in which the head of state is elected by Parliament rather than by

the people.(289)

11 March 1995 Leader of the National Party Tim Fischer said that he

supported an Australian constitutional monarchy 'but also having a

convention ahead of any referendum.' Mr Fischer said that 'The make-up of

Australia means any president appointed or elected by the cocoon of

Canberra will face the risk of being despised. Australia's size requires a

people elected president'. 'I personally favour an elected-by-the-people

ceremonial president, not withstanding the double mandate concerns.'(290)

13 March 1995 Democrat Leader Senator Kernot said that the Federal

Parliament should select the President by an election of both houses of

Federal Parliament (by a two thirds majority) from a short list drawn up

with the involvement of the public.(291)

17 March 1995 Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett said constitutional change was

inevitable and might even be appropriate. He declared his support for a

German method of electing a president by Members of Parliament. He said

that he was still aligned with monarchists but 'that's not to say that I

wouldn't be prepared to change to something else if something else came

along'.(292)

17 March 1995 Mr Fischer stated that in the context of the constitutional

debate, he preferred a largely ceremonial president directly elected by the

people. That in no way was an admission 'that a republic is inevitable. I

remain wedded to support for the existing "Australian constitutional

monarchy"-a phrase that needs to be understood as representing the totality

of a unique and very successful system of government.'(293)

18 March 1995 Mr Kennett said that he supported the present constitutional

system and that his earlier comments in support of the German republican

model had been misinterpreted.(294)

25 May 1995 The Opposition Leader, John Howard, said he did not believe the

republic debate would be a big election issue. 'Liberals who want a

republic are not going to change their vote over it and Labor people who

want the present arrangement won't change their vote either,' Mr Howard

said.(295)

7 June 1995 The Prime Minister, Paul Keating, gave a speech entitled 'An

Australian Republic The Way Forward' to Parliament. The speech was

televised nationally. In the speech the Prime Minister said that in the

government's view

* Australia should become a republic by the year 2001 and Australia's

'head of state' should be an Australian.

* The key proposal advanced by the Government for the establishment of a

federal republic was the election of a federal President. Other

related proposals included:

the president to be elected by a two thirds majority vote in a

joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament on the nomination of

the Prime Minister and Cabinet

the question of a republic to be put to the people in 1998 or

1999

the president be appointed for a non-renewable term of office of

five years

the president be an Australian citizen of voting age who may not

hold any other remunerated position while in office. Serving

Commonwealth, State and Territory parliamentarians would be

excluded from nomination and former Commonwealth, State and

Territory parliamentarians would be excluded from nomination

until five years had passed since departure from parliament

the president to be subject to removal by a two-thirds majority

vote in a joint sitting of Parliament, with either House having

the right to initiate the joint sitting by passing a motion

supported by a simple majority of members

the president perform ceremonial and representational functions

currently performed by the Queen and the Governor-General

the reserve powers currently possessed by the Governor-General

(eg. powers to appoint and dismiss the prime minister and to

refuse to force a dissolution of the lower house of parliament or

a simultaneous dissolution of both houses) remain with the

president. The Constitution would provide that the constitutional

conventions governing the exercise of these powers would

continue.

* The Government argued that the president should be an Australian and

elected by a two thirds majority of both Houses of Parliament because:

the election of a President who is an Australian expresses a

desire to have a 'head of state' who is an Australian

the election of a President who is an Australian will make clear

and unambiguous Australia's independence and responsibility for

our own affairs

an Australian 'head of state' can embody Australia's modern

aspirations, cultural diversity, evolving partnerships with Asia

and the Pacific, quest for reconciliation with Aboriginal

Australians, ambition to create a society in which women have

equal opportunity, equal representation and equal rights

the process will oblige the Government to nominate non-partisan

candidates

it will require consultation with non-Government parties to

ensure the candidate has bi-partisan support

it will avoid parliamentary debate on the relative merits of

competing candidates, which could discourage appropriate

candidates from accepting nomination

popular election would guarantee that an Australian 'head of

state' would be a politician, the major parties would run

candidates and those candidates would be backed by large party

organisations with the funds necessary to run nationwide

campaigns.

7 June 1995 The Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Cheryl Kernot,

issued a media briefing note setting out the Democrats views on a Republic

as follows.

* The Democrats supported Australia becoming a republic and believe the

'head of state' should be an Australian.

* The Democrats argued that the president should be elected by a two

thirds majority of both Houses of Parliament for the following reason:

If the reserve powers (eg. powers to appoint and dismiss the

prime minister and to refuse and force a dissolution of the lower

house of parliament or a simultaneous dissolution of both houses)

are to be retained the Democrats support election of a President

by a two thirds majority of parliamentary democracy.

* The election of a President by a two-thirds majority of both Houses of

Parliament was not the Democrats preferred position. The Democrats

believe:

the most appropriate method of election for a President depended

to a large extent on the role and powers of the President

the powers of the President should be codified

a process should be developed under which all Australians could

make nominations to a short-list from which Parliament would then

choose the President

a petition system should be instituted under which a candidate

could be nominated by no less than 25 000 and no more than 40 000

eligible voters

there should be a Bill of Rights incorporated into the

Constitution, an environmental head of power and the Government

should fund the Constitutional Centenary Foundation to lead

public debate over the next four years.

8 June 1995 The leader of the Opposition, John Howard, put the Oppositions'

position on a republic. In his speech to Parliament he put the following

proposals:

* The establishment of a 'Peoples Convention' in 1997 which would

examine such issues as:

whether or not Australia should become a republic

the role of the 'head of state' in the Australian Constitution,

including implications of change for the role of the States

allocation of legislative and executive powers and functions

between federal and state governments, including areas of overlap

and duplication

whether we should introduce four year instead of three year terms

of Parliament

the basis upon which new states, in particular the Northern

Territory, would be admitted to the federation

any other matter which the 'Peoples Convention' members

determine.

* The 'Peoples Convention' would consist of:

50 per cent of members appointed by the Government of the day, 10

per cent of which would be between 18 and 25 years of age

50 per cent elected.

* The arguments put forward by the Coalition for a 'Peoples Convention'

included:

enabling a range of community views to be properly examined

gauging the mood for change in the Australian community

providing a forum which unified rather than divided the community

allowing the people of Australia to decide the questions, the

options and the referendum; and

involving all Australian people at the beginning, in the middle

and at the end of the debate process.

* If consensus for change emerged from a 'Peoples Convention', that

consensus would be put to a referendum and promoted by the Government

of the day. If no consensus emerged from the 'Peoples Convention' the

Coalition would go to the people and seek their views on a range of

options.(296)

9 June 1995 The Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, referring to the

Coalition's proposed 'people's convention' said that:

he believed a national convention was 'just another committee'. I

have attended many constitutional conventions in my life over the

years and while (there is) a great deal of spirit, camaraderie

and good meals, I am not sure ...; they achieve anything, he

said. Just as I respect Mr Howard's honesty and his right to have

an opinion that a convention would be the best way to go, I have

got to say to you honestly that I am not a great committee man

and would rather get on with the deed and produce outcomes.(297)

10 June 1995 Mr Howard, referring to his proposal to put a referendum for a

republic if there was a 'consensus' on that from the people's convention,

said that 'consensus' meant 'a clear majority'. He said 51 per cent would

not be a clear majority but that '60-70 per cent is obviously a clear

majority'. He would not be tied to a particular figure.(298)

11 June 1995 The National Party leader, Tim Fischer, said that he would

feel 'duty-bound' to facilitate a referendum after the people's convention.

'There will be no sleight of hand, no stacking of the convention, no

infinite filibuster,' he said. 'In reality, a referendum is

inevitable.'(299)

11 June 1995 Tasmanian Liberal Premier Ray Groom announced a referendum to

be held in 1997 to give Tasmanians an opportunity to express their views on

the issue. Mr Groom said that change was not a question of if, but when.

'In my view, Australia has reached full adulthood as a national and must be

self-reliant and self-sufficient in every sense,' he said. 'In due course

an Australian will be our head of state...;That will also be reflected in

each of the States.'(300)

12 June 1995 Opposition leader John Howard, in a speech aimed at removing

'misconceptions' about his plan, said that his proposed people's convention

would deal with the question of a head of state as its prime task. If the

convention was unable to arrive at a consensus he would 'go to the people

to seek their views on a range of options'. These would include the

retention of the present constitutional arrangements, a popularly elected

president, a president chosen by a parliamentary process (as proposed by

the prime minister), and possibly another option whereby a head of state

could be chosen by some other process. The multiple choice plebiscite would

be held to determine the community's preference. This would be followed by

a formal referendum on the central question.(301) Mr Howard also said that

if the convention reached a consensus on a change to a republic, a

coalition government would campaign for it in a referendum.(302)

21 June 1995 The Liberal Premier of South Australia, Dean Brown, said South

Australia would face a referendum within two to three years on the State's

transition within a republic, including the role of a State figurehead. He

said 'I've indicated for the last two years that I believe Australia

becoming a republic is inevitable and when it occurs and how it occurs is

in the hands of Australians.' 'If Australia is to become a republic then I

believe the States should make their decision (on a head of State) at the

same time. We can't afford to have an absolute mish-mash with the States

being under a monarchy while having a republic at the federal level.'(303)

4 July 1995 The head of the Anglican Church of Australia, Archbishop Keith

Rayner, said that the republic debate was 'firmly on the national agenda'

and a republic appeared inevitable. 'If we are to become a republic, and I

think the signs are that this will happen, I agree with the view that the

president should not be chosen by popular election because that would

inevitably politicise the office'.(304)

5 July 1995 Sir Maurice Byers QC wrote that 'if both Cabinet and president

are to be elected and the president's mandate is the more direct,

irreconcilable opposites are likely to yield chaos.'(305)

30 August 1995 A former Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, a former

supporter of Australia retaining its ties to the monarchy, wrote in his

newspaper column that:

Emotionally, I have been attached to the monarchy because I

believe nations should protect their past and build on it for the

future. For a variety of reasons, which relate more to what has

happened in Britain than what has happened in Australia I now

accept that a republic is inevitable and right.(306)

29 September 1995 The ACTU passed a resolution at the second day of the

biennial ACTU congress endorsing the Federal Government's model for a

republic and calling for widespread debate on issues such as the preamble

and the rights of indigenous people before a referendum in 1998 or

1999.(307)

26 October 1995 The Governor-General, Bill Hayden warned that:

the Federal Government plan for a republic had 'very serious

pitfalls' which might threaten effective government. Mr Hayden

said 'Imagine a president who had been elected who becomes an

opportunist populist and who is able to cobble together

sufficient support in the Parliament to avoid being thrown out

and yet have a majority of the Parliament opposed to his conduct

and he then sets upon a course of wilful behaviour which makes

the proper process of government very difficult to sustain. You

could have a difficult situation...;we need to think a lot about

the implications of what we are talking about. We need to be sure

if we do anything that it is workable and doesn't have serious

defects'. Mr Hayden also said that an elected president might

cost more than a Governor-General because of the likelihood of

more frequent overseas travel. In his time as Governor-General,

spending on the office had fallen by 3 per cent a year in real

terms-inconsistent with someone who is self-indulgent, living

high on the neck of the hog, wallowing in self

gratification.(308)

3 November 1995 Journalist Brian Toohey estimated the savings which would

flow from a decision not to replace the Governor-General with a president

and if State Governors were not replaced by State Presidents, as

approximately $24 million.(309)

4 November 1995 The Prime Minister, in a speech to the Australian

Republican Movement, said that Britain's support of nuclear testing by

France in the Pacific showed Australia's and Britain's interests 'are often

very different and even fundamentally opposed'. 'The lesson to be learned

from it is not an anti-British one but one about the inappropriateness of

Australia having a head of state who is not one of us,' he said.(310)

5 November 1995 The executive director of Australians for Constitutional

Monarchy, Kerry Jones, said that Mr Keating's comments linking Britain's

refusal to oppose French nuclear testing in the Pacific to the need for a

republic drew attention to the dangers of an all-powerful political

president.(311)

9 November 1995 An Age editorial entitled 'Revisiting 1975 on the road to a

republic' asked how should a republican constitution deal with the

possibility of parliamentary deadlock? And where should the line be drawn

between the principles of representative and responsible government on the

one hand and the rights of the Senate as a house of review on the other? If

we do not wish the Senate to retain the right to block or vote against

money bills, should we rely on the prevailing convention or write this into

the constitution? The editorial concluded that for 20 years these questions

have been consigned to the too-hard basket but that we cannot make the

transition to a republic without resolving them.(312)

11 November 1995 The Opposition Leader, John Howard, on the 20th

anniversary of the dismissal of the Whitlam Labor government said that the

Prime Minister's model for a republic by 2000 gave the proposed president

more powers than those exercised by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr in

1975, powers that still divide the community.(313)

14 November 1995 The November issue of Choice magazine stated that a change

to a republic is neither imminent nor inevitable and that 'It's not just a

choice between retaining the monarchy with the Queen as head of state, or

becoming a republic with the president as head of state. A head of state

has powers and how these powers are exercised is a crucial issue in the

debate'.(314)

22 November 1995 Following revelations by the Princess of Wales about her

personal life, the executive director of the Australian Republican

Movement, Michael Ward, said 'There's a lot of interest in it, but I don't

think there is anything specifically pertinent to Australia's future with a

head of state'.(315)

24 November 1995 The Foreign Minister, Senator Gareth Evans, told a Senate

estimates hearing that Governor-General Bill Hayden had received

second-order treatment from the Americans when he attended the United

Nations' 50th anniversary celebrations because he was not recognised as

Australia's effective head of state. '(T)he Americans simply refused to

believe, after checking the question with the British Embassy, that the

Governor-General was the head of state.' Senator Evans said the

constitutional convention under which Australia operated, in which the

Governor-General was the practical head of state, was not understood

overseas.(316)

29 November 1995 A former Governor-General, Sir Zelman Cowen, delivering

the 1995 Sir Robert Menzies Lecture, said that a 'sea change' had taken

place in Australia, turning the tide in his own mind about the need for a

native head of state. He said the central argument for change was that only

a native head of state could ensure that 'primary and full time commitment'

was given to Australia's citizens. He criticised the idea of direct

election of a president on the grounds it would favour candidates backed by

the big political parties and exclude people like himself and Sir Ninian

Stephen.(317)

12 December 1995 The British High Commissioner, Sir Roger Carrick, said

that it was 'none of our business' whether Australia became a republic and

that neither government could allow the 'tabloid level of comment' to

affect the substance of the bilateral relationship.(318)

14 December 1995 Opposition Leader John Howard, in his fourth 'Headland'

speech said that the choice faced by Australia was not 'between our past

and our future, between our history and our geography. The task is to take

with us into the future what is best from our past, as well as to maximise

the potential benefits of our geographic position.' Mr Howard said that his

proposed People's Convention would provide a calm forum for deliberation.

He said 'We are not offering a republic by stealth. Nor do we believe that

government ought to try to create a stampede. Nor will we erect artificial

barriers to prevent the people expressing their views.'(319)

17 December 1995 Deputy Opposition Leader Peter Costello said that 'I think

that there is a real case, if people really want to elect the president, I

don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to, myself.'(320)

22 December 1995 A cross section of monarchists and republicans appeared to

agree that a divorce of the Prince and Princess of Wales would be unlikely

to influence the country's republic debate.(321)

1 January 1996 The chairman of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation, Sir

Ninian Stephen, released a 'key issues' paper which raised for debate

questions such as 'Should there be a more formal separation of powers

between parliament and government?' 'What should be the rights and

responsibilities of Australian citizens?' 'Should Northern Territory become

a State?' Sir Ninian said that the only aspect of governance which had been

'debated with any degree of seriousness' in recent years was 'the republic

and whether there should be a wholly Australian head of State'. 'The same

considerations of national identity which underlie the republic debate

justify a fresh look at the rest of the constitutional system in light of

the values and needs of the present,' he said.(322)

17 January 1996 Alan Lees, a 67 year old war veteran who served two tours

of duty in the Korean war, resigned from the RSL because he would not swear

allegiance to 'the Queen of a foreign country'. Mr Bruce Ruxton defended

the league's anti-republican stance and said that the league 'was not

prepared to accept republicans...;and its rule regarding allegiance to the

Queen would 'never change'.(323)

17 January 1996 The NSW Premier, Bob Carr, announced the appointment of a

new Governor, Gordon Samuels, a former judge of the NSW Supreme Court, for

four years instead of the usual five. The Governor-designate would not have

to give up his present positions, including chairmanship of the NSW Law

Reform Commission and would not take up residence in Government House. He

would be accommodated instead in a government office suite. The Governor's

revised role would include some ceremonial duties but Mr Samuels expected

that his ceremonial and community duties would be reduced. Mr Samuels said

'he did not think such tasks were of the first importance. Mr Carr's

changes take the right approach. They involve stripping away the mystique

and the superfluous trimmings, and focusing on the serious responsibilities

of the Governor's position. The pressure will come on other State to follow

suit.'(324)

17 January 1996 The NSW Opposition called for an immediate recall of

Parliament and a referendum on the role of the Governor and Government

House following Mr Carr's announcement.(325)

18 January 1996 The Opposition foreign affairs spokesman, Alexander Downer,

said that NSW Premier Bob Carr's decision to downgrade the Governor's job

to a part-time position had national implications. 'Mr Carr has treated the

public with complete contempt and has telegraphed what Mr Keating will do

...; try to ram through changes he wants to our Constitution without any

consultation.' A spokesman for Mr Keating rejected Mr Downer's claim saying

'The Prime Minister has no intention of changing in any way the status or

role of the Governor-General or his staffing arrangements, working

conditions or accommodation.'(326)

8 February 1996 The Prime Minister, Paul Keating said that a vote for Labor

was a vote for the republic, while a vote for John Howard was a vote for

the retention of the monarchy.(327)

11 February 1996 Mr Fahey, the Liberal candidate for the federal seat of

Macarthur said a Coalition federal government would support the

establishment of an Australian republic if the 'mood of the people' wanted

it. He said it was a decision the people, not governments, must make.(328)

13 February 1996 National Party Senator Ron Boswell at the National launch

of Senate candidates in Brisbane, said:

a vote for the National Party was a vote to retain the existing

constitutional system and flag. He said If the people's

convention calls for a referendum, the National Party will

support one being put to the Australian people ...; But we will

reserve the right to campaign against the Keating republic idea,

not because we are besotted with the House of Windsor, but

because of the uneasy and significant shifts in our democratic

structure which Keating's republic would entail. The National

Party leader, Tim Fischer, said that regardless of what happened

at the people's convention, a referendum would be held.(329)

14 February 1996 Mr Keating said that if re-elected his Government would

conduct a plebiscite (a non binding popular vote) on the single question:

'Do you want an Australian to be Australia's head of State?' If the

plebiscite was passed, a joint parliamentary committee would frame

constitutional changes to be put to the people in a referendum.(330)

14 February 1996 Democrat's leader Senator Cheryl Kernot said a plebiscite

was a good first step to settle, once and for all, whether the Australian

people wanted an Australian as head of state. The next step, a joint house

committee, must include examination of not just the Prime Minister's model

for a republic but other possible options to be voted on by the people at a

referendum. The Democrats stated that Australians wanted a say in

nominating a list of Presidential candidates from which Parliament could

choose and suggested that consideration be given to the petition system

under which a candidate could be nominated, for example, by no less than 25

000 voters.(331)

15 February 1996 Mr Howard said the Labor Party's proposal for a plebiscite

to determine if Australia becomes a republic 'could lead to the "ludicrous"

situation where a plebiscite on whether there should be an Australian head

of state was carried, but a referendum on Australia becoming a republic was

defeated.' He added '...;I think (in that situation) we would look foolish

and we would be in some sort of constitutional limbo.'(332)

15 February 1996 The Prime Minister in his policy speech launching the

Labor Party's election campaign said that 'We believe that an Australian

head of state should welcome in the next century, should open the Olympic

Games in the year 2000, should represent us abroad in this nation's second

century.' He also said that 'The Government never suggested that its model

was the only one. We want to see the widest possible discussion and

consultation.'(333)

20 February 1996 An AGB McNair Age Poll found that 76 per cent of voters

said they would like an Australian head of state but that very few people

said that Labor's position on an Australian head of state would make them

more likely to vote for the Government.(334)

1 March 1996 About 500 monarchists rallied at Government House to continue

the fight against Premier Carr's decision to alter the role of the Governor

and to open Government House to the public. The Leader of the NSW

Opposition, Peter Collins, accepted a petition containing 55 000 signatures

and promised to 'submit the petition to Parliament at the first available

opportunity'.(335)

Endnotes

1. The Age, 17 January 1991

2. Constitutional convention discusses the power of the Governor-General,

the prospect of four-year terms and a Bill of Rights, P.M., Wednesday

3 April 1991.

3. Transcript of News Conference, Parliament House, Sydney, 5 April 1991.

4. Transcript of Doorstop Interview with Dr John Hewson, MP, Leader of

the Opposition, Australia-China Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Luncheon, Queen Victoria Building, Sydney, Tuesday, 25 June 1991.

5. Ross Peake, 'Criticism follows ALP's muted yes to a republic', The

Age, 26 June 1991.

6. Tony Hewett, 'Queen or country? The answer is a deadlock', The Sydney

Morning Herald, 26 June 1991.

7. ibid.

8. Transcript of Dr John Hewson MP, Interview with Paul Barber and John

Hindle on Radio 3AW, Melbourne, 26 June 1991.

9. Transcript of News Conference, Wrest Point Hotel, Hobart, 27 June

1991, with the Prime Minister, Paul Keating.

10. 'RSL fires salvo over republic aspirations', The Canberra Times, 27

June 1991.

11. 'Call for a separate Australian monarchy', The Canberra Times, 28 June

1991.

12. Media release, National Party of Australia, Federal Secretariat,

Brisbane, 28 June 1991.

13. Steven Wilson, 'BHP chief attacks political myopia', The Australian, 4

July 1991.

14. Transcript of the Australian Republican Movement by Tom

Keneally-President of the Committee, 7 July 1991.

15. 'The royalist reaction', The Sun-Herald, 7 July 1991.

16. Margot Date, 'A stroke of the pen, and goodbye Queen', The Sydney

Morning Herald, 8 July 1991.

17. ibid.

18. Jenna Price, 'Our royalists get a whiff of treason and sedition', The

Sydney Morning Herald, 9 July 1991.

19. Midday Show, Channel 9, Wednesday 17 July 1991.

20. Senator Bronwyn Bishop, Liberal, NSW, media release, 17 July 1991.

21. John Howard, 'Republican soft-soap approach won't wash', The Sunday

Telegraph, 21 July 1991.

22. Alex Mitchell, 'Republican? Not me!', The Sun Herald, 21 July 1991.

23. 'Republic row "distraction"', The Canberra Times, 24 July 1991.

24. 'Federation centenary "realistic" target for republic: Whitlam', The

Canberra Times, 26 July 1991.

25. 'Bishop favours debate on republicanism', The Canberra Times, 4 August

1991.

26. 'Republic fight', The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 August 1991.

27. Rohan Sullivan, 'Republicanism creeps into courts', The Australian, 10

January 1992.

28. Ron Hicks, 'Republican Party finally has clout to register', The

Australian, 11 January 1992.

29. Sonya Voumard, 'Call for greater clarity in the republic debate', The

Age, 27 January 1992.

30. B.C.Ruxton, 'State President, The Returned Services League',

Melbourne, Letter to the editor, The Australian, 31 January 1992.

31. Mark Irving and Lenore Taylor, 'PM backs new flag', The Australian, 1

February 1992.

32. Geoffrey Barker, 'Colonial cringe needs to change before the flag',

The Age, 4 February 1992.

33. 'Queen welcome: republican mockery', The Canberra Times, 10 February

1992.

34. News Release, 003/92, John Howard MP, Member for Bennelong, Shadow

Minister for Industrial Relations, Employment and Training.

35. Tom Keneally, Republic Debate, 'Queen indeed or simply quaint?', The

Australian, 15 February 1992.

36. John Howard, Republic Debate, 'Queen indeed or simply quaint?', The

Australian, 15 February 1992.

37. 'Queen welcome: republican mockery', The Canberra Times, 10 February

1992.

38. Mark Coultan, 'Boycott by five Labor members', The Sydney Morning

Herald, 19 February 1992.

39. Nicole Leedham, 'Australia will be republic: Whitlam', The Canberra

Times, 23 February 1992.

40. Robert Garran, 'Anger, applause over Keating's speech to Queen', The

Australian Financial Review, 25 February 1992 and Tom Keneally, 'Our

Republic', 1993, William Heinemann Australia, Melbourne, p.129.

41. Robert Garran, 'Anger, applause over Keating's speech to Queen', The

Australian Financial Review, 25 February 1992.

42. ibid.

43. ibid.

44. John Hurst, 'Keatings cop a blast from the British media', The

Australian Financial Review, 26 February 1992.

45. Hansard, 27 February 1992

46. Letter to the editor, John Howard, 'Asian opinion no reason to throw

out monarchy', The Australian, 28 February 1992.

47. Tim Fischer MP, media release, 28 February 1992.

48. 'Keating cleared - but not in UK media', The Sydney Morning Herald, 28

February 1992.

49. 'Sorry, Ma'am, most Australians want a republic', The Sydney Morning

Herald, 29 February 1992.

50. The Age, 29 February 1992.

51. Marc McEvoy, 'Queen triggers republican rush', The Sunday Telegraph, 1

March 1992.

52. Gough Whitlam, 'I've changed my views on the question of the monarchy

in the past 16 years', The Sunday Age, 1 March 1992.

53. Bob McMullan, 'Inevitable that nation becomes a republic', The

Canberra Times, 1 March 1992.

54. 'Republicans out in front', The Canberra Times, 1 March 1992.

55. Press release, Young Liberal Movement of Australia, 1 March 1992.

56. Marc McEvoy, 'Queen triggers republican rush', The Sunday Telegraph, 1

March 1992.

57. Nicolas Rothwell, 'Hurd ridicules Keating's broadside', The

Australian, 2 March 1992.

58. Hewson scoffs at republican 'diversion', The Canberra Times, 2 March

1992.

59. Glenn Milne, 'Attack on Britain may cost ALP marginal seats', The

Australian, 3 March 1992.

60. Peter Hartcher, 'Support for Keating republic; Hawke favours

referendum', The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 March 1992.

61. Justine Ferrari and Nick Richardson, '"Stooge" Hayden urged to quit',

The Australian, 6 March 1992.

62. Ian Warden, 'Time seems to be running out for Ken', The Canberra

Times, 8 March 1992.

63. Reuter, 'Hayden derided as "stooge of the republicans"', The Canberra

Times, 6 March 1992.

64. Peter Ward and Richard Sproull, 'Keating sings his republican tune',

The Australian, 7 March 1992/

65. Malcolm Fraser, 'The historical facts are clear, but a republic is not

the answer', The Sunday Age, 8 March 1992.

66. Andrew Masterson, '"I'll flatten Keating", says bedless Botham', The

Sunday Age, 8 March 1992.

67. Brad Crouch, 'MP plans to protest to the Queen', The Sunday Telegraph,

8 March 1992.

68. David Kempt, 'Keating must stop fighting past battles', The Canberra

Times, 8 March 1992.

69. Geoff Kitney, 'More shots in war of independence', The Australian

Financial Review, 9 March 1992.

70. Glenn Milne, 'Howard defies Hewson on Queen', The Australian, 10 March

1992.

71. Reuter, London, 'Commonwealth "very relevant"', The Canberra Times, 10

March 1992.

72. Dr John Hewson, MP - Leader of the Opposition, Transcript of Doorstop

interview with Dr Hewson at the Assisi Centre, Rosanna, Victoria, 15

March 1992.

73. Transcript of the Prime Minister, the Hon P J Keating MP Speech to the

Irish-Australian Chamber of Commerce, St Patrick's Day Breakfast,

Melbourne, 17 March 1992.

74. Alexander Downer, Member for Mayo, Shadow Minister for Trade and Trade

Negotiations, media release, 17 March 1992.

75. The Hon John Dawkins, Treasurer, press release, Wednesday 18 March

1992.

76. Geoff Kitney, 'PM links flag to economy', The Australian Financial

Review, 18 March 1992.

77. Nicholas Johnston, 'Griffiths in attack on British links', The Age, 23

March 1992.

78. Tim Fischer MP, Media Release, 24 March 1992.

79. Patrick Smithers, 'Royal skit bowls out England stars', The Age, 25

March 1992.

80. Michael Gordon, 'Hewson shifts on republic', The Sunday Age, 15 March

1992.

81. Australian Republican Movement Inc, GPO Box 5150, Sydney NSW 2001,

Australia.

82. 'Republican feeling gathers momentum', The Bulletin, 31 March 1992.

83. Matthew Westwood, 'Et tu Ipswich, says bitter Bill', The Australian, 3

April 1992.

84. Peter Hartcher, 'Keating the republican delights Indonesia", The

Sydney Morning Herald, 4 April 1992.

85. Bob Hawke, 'With dignity to a republic', The Sun-Herald, Sydney, 5

April 1992.

86. Tom Burton, Republic: 'Keating not waiting on the Queen', The Sydney

Morning Herald, 7 April 1992.

87. Glenn Milne, 'PM considers flag design competition', The Australian, 8

April 1992.

88. Michelle Hoffman, 'RSL will bar republicans on Anzac Day', The Sunday

Telegraph, 12 April 1992.

89. John Hirst, 'Must the baby go out with the bathwater?', The Sydney

Morning Herald, 23 April 1992.

90. Ross Peake, 'Kokoda visit moves Keating', The Canberra Times, 27 April

1992.

91. 'History in the eye of the beholder', The Canberra Times, 28 April

1992.

92. 'Archbishop Hollingworth enters republican debate', The Canberra

Times, 28 April 1992.

93. Lenore Taylor, 'Party wants PM to defer flag vote', The Australian, 30

March 1992.

94. Malcolm Turnbull, 'Time to show our true colours', The Australian, 2

May 1992.

95. 'Nationals niggly on flag issue', The Canberra Times, 3 May 1992.

96. Glenn Milne, 'Voter support for Keating flags over the republic', The

Australian, 5 May 1992.

97. Ross Peake, 'Moves for republic "good for foreign policy"', The

Canberra Times, 8 May 1992.

98. Denis Muller, 'Support continues for Australian republic', The Sydney

Morning Herald, 11 May 1992.

99. 'PM a bigot: RSL head', The West-Australian, 14 May 1992.

100. 'Republican movement out to lunch', The Canberra Times, 15 May 1992.

101. Steven Wilson, 'Turnbull damns Keating's republican claims as unfair',

The Australian, 15 May 1992.

102. Alison Blanksby, 'Liberals raise republican's ire', The

West-Australian, 18 May 1992.

103. 'Republic a distraction', The Canberra Times, 25 May 1992.

104. Geoffrey Partinton, 'Rocky road to the republic', The Bulletin, 2 June

1992.

105. D.D.McNicoll, 'Royalists sing in praise of Queen', The Australian, 5

June 1992.

106. Etcetera, The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 June 1992.

107. Alex Mitchell, 'Aboriginal woman for president call', The Sun-Herald,

7 June 1992.

108. Suzanne McDonnell, 'Republicanism plot blooming', The Sunday Age, 7

June 1992.

109. Eamonn Fitzpatrick, 'Republicans challenged to "acid test"', The

Sydney Morning Herald, 8 June 1992.

110. ibid.

111. Glenn Milne, 'Reserve, church lambast Keating', The Australian, 10

June 1992.

112. Editorial, 'A divorce from the monarchy', The Australian, 10 June

1992.

113. Speech by the Prime Minister, The Hon P.J.Keating MP Australian Book

Publishers Awards, Sydney 26 June 1992.

114. Michael Gordon and Suzanne McDonnell, 'Keating's "Irish agenda"

rapped', The Sunday Age, 2 June 1992.

115. Michelle Grattan, 'Democrats hint at vote on new oath', The Age, 29

June 1992.

116. Editorial, 'Republican loyalties of Mr Keating', The Australian, 30

June 1992.

117. Sue Cant and Dennis Shanahan, 'RSL wages war on Keating crusade', The

Australian 2 July 1992.

118. Deanie Carbon, 'Queen just window dressing, says Gough', The

Australian, 8 July 1992.

119. Crispin Hull, 'Republican approval "backs constitution"', The Canberra

Times, 14 July 1992.

120. Anne Connolly, 'Education the battle hymn of Duffy's republic', The

Australian, 23 July 1992.

121. Tony Stephens, 'Battle royal was more of a civilised skirmish', The

Sydney Morning Herald, 29 July 1992.

122. Editorial, 'Royal foibles lead to calmer republic debate', The

Canberra Times 23 August 1992.

123. 'Coalition warns of plan for President', The Canberra Times, 30 August

1992.

124. Michael Gordon, 'Republic won't be an issue in election', says

Keating, The Sunday Age, 30 August 1992.

125. AAP, 'Republic inevitable - Keating', The Australian Financial Review,

30 August 1992.

126. 'Murdoch defends monarchy reports', The Australian, 16 October 1992.

127. Crispin Hull, 'Keating gets a serve from Sir David', The Canberra

Times, 29 October 1992.

128. Catherine Lambert, 'Poll has republic a winner', The Sunday Herald, 1

November 1992.

129. Michael Millett, 'PM urges change to oath of allegiance', The Sydney

Morning Herald, 14 November 1992.

130. Greg Craven, 'Constitutional hurdles to abolishing monarchy', The

Canberra Times, 18 November 1992.

131. Phillip Derriman, 'Royalty: the equal opportunity argument', The

Sydney Morning Herald, 19 November 1992.

132. Martin Daly, 'Debate spurred by separation of the

powers-that-would-be', The Age, 11 December 1992.

133. 'New oath abolishes allegiance to Queen', The Canberra Times, 18

December 1992.

134. Bob McMullan, 'It's time for us to choose our head of state', The

Canberra Times, 20 December 1992.

135. Young Libs back republican poll', The Age, 5 January 1993.

136. Australian Labor Party Policy Launch Address 1993 Federal Election

presented by Paul Keating, Prime Minister of Australia at the

Bankstown Town Hall, 24 February 1993.

137. Peter Wilson, Jamie Walker, Lenore Taylor and Tim Stevens, 'Right

scorns republic "stunt"', The Australian, 25 February 1993.

138. Peter Wilson, Jamie Walker, Lenore Taylor and Tim Stevens, 'Right

scorns republic "stunt"', The Australian, 25 February 1993.

139. George Winterton, 'How to create the republic of Australia', The

Australian, 26 February 1993.

140. Ross Peake, 'Coalition "would not block" a republic', The Canberra

Times, 4 March 1993.

141. Peter Wilson, 'PM plans republic by "at least" 2001', The Australian,

16 March 1993.

142. Jamie Walker and Martin Thomas, 'Liberals embrace debate on republic',

The Australian 20 March 1993.

143. Cherie Beach, 'Perron backs Lib republic debate', The News, 22 March

1993.

144. Transcript of Dr John Hewson MP Doorstop Press Conference, Masonic

Centre, Sydney, 27 March 1993.

145. John Synnott, 'Fahey supports push for a republic', The Sun-Herald, 28

March 1993.

146. Greg Thomson, 'Republic is on agenda: Perron', The News, 29 March

1993.

147. Mark Metherell, 'Pressure on for republic convention', The Age, 29

March 1993.

148. Tim Dodd and Peter Gill, 'Conservative opposition cracking', The

Australian Financial Review, 29 March 1993.

149. Paola Totari and Bernard Lagan, 'Murray promised a right royal blue',

The Sydney Morning Herald, 29 March 1993.

150. Malcolm Quekett and Randal Markey, 'Liberal split opens after republic

call', The West-Australian, 29 March 1993.

151. 'Coalition sparks as Libs embrace republic', The Canberra Times, 30

March 1993.

152. ibid.

153. ibid.

154. Andrew Darby and Greg Roberts, 'March to republic gains pace', The

Sydney Morning Herald, 30 March 1993.

155. 'Push for republic grows', The Canberra Times, 31 March 1993.

156. Matthew Warren, Peter Wilson and Natasha Bita, 'Liberal leader backs

republic', The Australian, 31 March 1993.

157. News release, John Howard, MP, Canberra, 1 April 1993.

158. Media release, Senator Cheryl Kernot, Widen Republican Debate:

Democrats, 13 April 1993.

159. News release, Senator John Coulter, 15 April 1993.

160. Anne-Marie McCarthy, 'Hamer breaks ranks and bows to the

"inevitable"', The Age, 27 April 1993.

161. P.M., Monday 26 April 1993.

162. The Report of the Republic Advisory Committee, Volume 1, Commonwealth

of Australia, 1993, p. iv.

163. ibid.

164. Michael Millett, 'First step towards a republic, The Sydney Morning

Herald, 29 April 1993.

165. Lenore Taylor, Swearing in leaves the Queen out', The Australian, 28

April 1993.

166. Transcript of Press Conference, John Hewson MP, Parliament House,

Canberra, 29 April 1993.

167. Media release, Tim Fischer MP, Leader of the National Party of

Australia, 29 April 1993.

168. Press release, Tim Fischer MP, 30 April 1993.

169. Graham Downie, 'Archbishop gives "cautious support"', The Canberra

Times, 30 April 1993.

170. Tony Hewett, 'Youth demands a voice', The Sydney Morning Herald, 30

April 1993.

171. Jamie Walker, 'Kernot attacks Keating cop-out', The Australian, 1 May

1993.

172. Innes Willox, 'Hewson's call for republic report rejected by Sir

Ninian', The Age, 1 May 1993.

173. Nicholas Johnston, 'Coalition leaders deny republic rift', The Age, 5

May 1993.

174. Hugo Kelly, 'Premiers face conflict over states' republic committee

member', The Age, 5 April 1993.

175. Amanda Hurley, 'Elected president gains popularity, survey finds', The

West Australian, 5 May 1993.

176. Ewin Hannan, 'Kennett demands more say for States', The Australian, 5

April 1993.

177. Michael Millett, 'Queen and I: Howard explains the attraction', The

Sydney Morning Herald, 7 April 1993.

178. D.D.McNicoll, 'Turnbull invites public comment on republic paper', The

Australian, 13 May 1993.

179. Frank Alcorta, 'NT scores a first on republic', The News, 21 May 1993.

180. Statement by the Prime Minister, the Hon P.J.Keating MP, Republic

Advisory Committee - State Representatives, Canberra, 25 May 1993.

181. AAP, 'Truce out, republic becomes a debating bludgeon', The Canberra

Times, 14 May 1995.

182. Innes Willox, 'Keating wants to quit Commonwealth, says Hewson', The

Age, 17 May 1993.

183. Media release, Dr David Kemp MP, 27 May 1993.

184. Republic probable, not inevitable; Libs, The Age, 27 May 1993.

185. Richard Macey, "Republic team pads up for the first test', The Sydney

Morning Herald, 28 May 1993.

186. Errol Simper, 'Hewson staffer to fight republicans', The Australian, 4

June 1993.

187. 'Republic opens door to dictatorship: Gibbs', The Australian, 5 June

1993.

188. Press release, Republic Advisory Committee, 7 June 1993.

189. Jodie Brough, 'Vow on Commonwealth', The Canberra Times, 9 June 1993.

190. Anne Crawford, 'Wattle Day think of to replace royal holiday?', The

Sunday Age, 13 June 1993.

191. Madona King, 'Hewson's republic demands, PM challenged to meet strict

criteria', The Australian 15 June 1993.

192. Madonna King, 'Church leader rejects republic', The Australian, 18

June 1993.

193. Mike Steketee, 'All is well in Greiner's republic', The Sydney Morning

Herald, 19 June 1993.

194. 'Better off separate', The Bulletin, 22 June 1993.

195. ibid.

196. Keith Scott, 'Greiner warns Liberals', The Canberra Times, 23 June

1993.

197. Transcript of Interview between John Hewson MP and Peter Couchman

Program, Radio 3LO, 30 June 1993.

198. Nick Richardson, 'Monarchist faithful follow the footsteps of

history', The Australian, 3 July 1993.

199. Lindsay Tanner, Federal Member for Melbourne, The Left and the

Republic, July 1993.

200. The Hon John Howard, MP, Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations,

Address to the 46th Annual council of The Australian Liberal Students'

Federation, Trinity College, University of Melbourne, 8 July 1993.

201. Nick Richardson, 'Republicans conscript Blinky', The Australian, 8

July 1993.

202. Peter Weeks, 'Greens want broader debate on republic', The Australian,

10 July 1993

203. Michael Millet, 'Liberal stand a blow to republic', The Sydney Morning

Herald, 10 July 1993.

204. Chris Uhlmann, 'Republican issue "must be matter of conscience"', The

Canberra Times, 11 July 1993.

205. Alex Messina, 'Bid to widen republican debate', The Age, 14 July 1993.

206. Tim Dodd, 'Monarchists raise doubts on referendum', The Australian

Financial Review, 19 July 1993.

207. Glenn Milne, '80pc want popular vote on head of State', The

Australian, 19 July 1993.

208. Editorial, 'A minimalist fantasy', The Age, 21 July 1993.

209. Malcolm Quekett, 'Premier plans republic probe', The West-Australian,

22 July 1993.

210. Tracey Aubin, '"Royal" beheaded as a title for new national bodies',

The Canberra Times, 25 July 1993.

211. Senator Ron Boswell, media release, 26 July 1993.

212. Keith Scott, 'Hewson pushes hard line against republic', The Canberra

Times, 26 July 1993.

213. Senator Cheryl Kernot, media release, Sunday 1 August 1993.

214. Dennis Muller, 'Push for republic loses some of its momentum', The

Age, 9 August 1993.

215. Jim Della-Giacoma and Scott Henry, 'Codify reserve powers;

republicans', The Australian, 16 August 1993.

216. Tony Stephens, 'Young Libs for republic', The Sydney Morning Herald,

17 August 1993.

217. Natasha Bita, 'Lib Minister ridicules monarchists', The Australian, 28

August 1993.

218. Goeffrey Barker, 'Libs gag dissent in republican debate', The Age, 30

August 1993.

219. 'Presidency not for me: Keating', The Canberra Times, 30 August 1993.

220. 'Republicans lay claim to the wattle', The Canberra Times, 30 August

1993.

221. 'Support for republic', The Age, 31 August 1993.

222. Ross Peake, 'Republic for Aust to decide: Britain', The Canberra

Times, 7 September 1993.

223. Media release, The Hon Lynn M.F.Arnold MP, 9 September 1993.

224. Media release, Governor-General Bill Hayden, 13 September 1993.

225. Lenore Taylor, 'Survey results boost republic push', The Australian,

15 September 1993.

226. Prime Minister Keating, press release, 19 September 1993, Leuchars,

Scotland.

227. Lenore Taylor, 'PM to use Olympics in push for republic', The

Australian, 27 September 1993.

228. 'Republican push will not mar visit by Prince Charles', The Canberra

Times, 29 September 1993.

229. 'Voters turn off PM's republic', The Australian, 29 September 1993.

230. Amanda Meade, 'Keating stalls on debut of new flag', The Sydney

Morning Herald, 30 September 1993

231. Amanda Meade, 'Monarchists see republican plot in new pledge', The

Sydney Morning Herald, 1 October 1993.

232. The Report of the Republic Advisory Committee, 'An Australian

Republic', The Options, vol. 1, p. 1.

233. John Hewson, Leader of the Opposition, media release, 5 October 1993.

234. Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, press release, 5 October

1993.

235. 'Opinions on republic are firming: poll', The Canberra Times, 11

October 1993.

236. Dennis Shanahan, 'Queen understands republican moves, says PM', The

Australian, 23 October 1993.

237. Peter Cole-Adams, 'Good-humoured Queen tells would-be republics: "I

wish you well"', The Canberra Times 23 October 1993.

238. Peter Lalor, 'Republic: the people shout no', The Sunday Herald-Sun,

24 October 1993.

239. Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, press release, Republic

Report "Wrong" - Gibbs change to a Republic "Shrouded in Doubt", 3

November 1993.

240. Address by The Hon. John Howard, MP to the Samuel Griffiths Society

Conference held at The Esplanade Hotel, Freemantle, 6 November 1993.

241. Fia Cumming, 'Doubt on republic by 2000', The Sunday Herald-Sun, 14

November 1993.

242. Senator Nick Bolkus, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs,

Multiculturalism and the Republic, 19 November 1993.

243. Martin Daly, 'Republican cause near death: monarchists', The Age, 28

December 1993.

244. Tony Wright, 'Prince gives republican movement his blessing', The

Sydney Morning Herald, 27 January 1994.

245. Keith Gosman, 'Don't panic about the republic - Charles', The Sydney

Morning Herald, 7 February 1994.

246. The Hon Kim C Beazley MP, Minister for Finance, 'Identifying National

Interests and the Interest in Identity', Inaugural Sir John Monash

Lecture and Opening of the Graduate School of Government, Monash

University, 17 February 1994.

247. Danielle Cook, 'Kerry takes crown as queen of the lobby', The Sydney

Morning Herald, 31 March 1994.

248. Tony Stephens, 'PM could legislate for a republic, says judge', The

Sydney Morning Herald, 9 April 1994.

249. Farah Farouque, 'Rift over monarchy comments', The Age, 15 April 1994.

250. Crispin Hull, 'Carnell flags referendum on republic', The Canberra

Times, 16 May 1994.

251. Innes Willox, 'Downer takes hardline on plans to switch to a

republic', The Age, 27 May 1994.

252. Geoff Kitney, 'Keating signals end to push for a new flag', The Sydney

Morning Herald, 15 June 1994.

253. Rebecca Fowler and Tim Rayment of the Sunday Times and Fiona Harari,

'Defender of the Faith not for me: Charles', The Australian, 27 June

1994.

254. Jodie Brough, 'Diehard Aussie Royalists give Charles a better deal

than the English', The Canberra Times, 30 June 1994.

255. Louise Dodson, 'A secret Libs cell opposes party line', The Australian

Financial Review, 4 July 1994.

256. ALSF, Media Information, 6 July 1994.

257. Jodie Brough, 'Hewson hits at party's "Gestapo" line', The Canberra

Times, 6 July 1994.

258. Geoffrey Barker, 'Liberals soften line on republic', The Age, 6 July

1994.

259. Linda Morris, 'Exposed: NSW Liberals closet republicans', The Sydney

Morning Herald, 6 July 1994.

260. Geoff Kitney, 'Federal Libs say republic is inevitable', The Sydney

Morning Herald, 7 July 1994.

261. Geoff Kitney, 'Federal Libs say republic is inevitable', The Sydney

Morning Herald, 7 July 1994.

262. Dennis Shanahan, 'Monarchists in threat tactics against top Tory', The

Australian, 8 July 1994.

263. Geoff Kitney and Tony Wright, 'Republic plan up to five years off,'

The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 July 1994.

264. Media release, Leader of the Opposition, Keating will hide republic

details, 9 July 1994.

265. Sir Rupert Hamer, 'Change inevitable, but largely symbolic', The

Canberra Times, 9 July 1994.

266. Peter Cole-Adams, 'Downer sidesteps Royal row', The Canberra Times, 11

July 1994.

267. Mark Baker, 'It's not a power grab: Keating', The Age, 12 July 1994.

268. Ross Peake, 'Widen republic debate, demand the Democrats', The

Canberra Times, 13 July 1994.

269. Rachel Hawes, 'Downer prods PM on republic', The Australian, 18 July

1994.

270. 'Republic inevitable: Malcolm Fraser', The Canberra Times, 25 July

1994.

271. Media release, The Liberal Party of Australia, NSW Division, 31 July

1994.

272. Geoff Kitney and Mark Coultan, 'Back off republic, Howard tells Libs',

The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 August 1994.

273. Geoff Kitney, 'Keating renews push for local head of state', The

Sydney Morning Herald, 6 August 1994.

274. Sonya Voumard and Geoff Kitney, 'Young Libs ignore gag on republic

debate', The Sydney Morning Herald, 22 August 1994.

275. Margo Kingston, 'Downer in for torrid party row', The Canberra Times,

29 August 1994.

276. Ross Peake, 'Teague breaks with policy', The Canberra Times, 30 August

1994.

277. David Humphries, 'Jones declares minimalist republic option dead', The

Australian, 1 September 1994.

278. Debra Jopson and Bernard Zuel,' Dame Joan shows her True Brit', 7

October 1994.

279. Mark Baker, 'Keating defers republican options', The Age, 8 October

1994.

280. Milton Cockburn, 'Liberal voters welcome republic', The Sydney Morning

Herald, 3 November 1994.

281. Leader of the Opposition Alexander Downer MP, Press Conference,

Parliament House, Canberra, 10 November 1994.

282. Tim Fischer MP, media release, 11 November 1994.

283. Editorial, Policy is needed, not gimmicks, The Canberra Times, 19

November 1994.

284. Malcolm Fraser, 'Royal antics muddy republic debate', The Australian,

24 November 1994.

285. 'Young Libs urge support for an Australian republic', The Canberra

Times, 12 January 1995.

286. Colleen Egan, 'Group backs States' rights on republic', The

Australian, 17 January 1995.

287. Kendall Hill, 'Most favour direct vote for president', The Age, 26

January 1995.

288. Geoff Kitney, 'Liberals to take softer stand on republic', The Sydney

Morning Herald, 17 February 1995.

289. Editorial, 'Options for electing a president', The Australian 10 March

1995.

290. 'Fischer backs elected president', The Australian, 11 March 1995.

291. Ian Henderson, 'Involve public in list for president: Kernot', The

Canberra Times, 13 March 1995.

292. Ross Peake, 'Kennett: chink in the republic armour', The Canberra

Times, 17 March 1995.

293. Tim Fischer, 'Republic debate must focus on election of president',

The Australian, 17 March 1995.

294. Rachel Gibson, 'Kennett revises republic remarks', The Age, 18 March

1995.

295. Michelle Grattan, 'Labor lags on republic policy: Lib', The Age, 25

May 1995.

296. Ian Ireland, An Australian Republic-The State of Play, Parliamentary

Research Service, Research Note no. 53, 27 June 1995.

297. Michelle Coffey and staff reporters, 'Kennett opposes Howard on

convention', The Australian, 9 June 1995.

298. Michelle Grattan, 'Howard to seek unity on republic', The Age, 10 June

1995.

299. Bruce Jones, 'Howard left behind in rush to republic', The Sun Herald,

11 June 1995.

300. Bruce Jones, 'Howard left behind in rush to republic', The Sun Herald,

11 June 1995.

301. Ross Peake, 'Fischer, Howard republic conflict', The Canberra Times,

13 June 1995

302. Peter Cole-Adams, 'Howard makes republic pledge', The Canberra Times,

12 June 1995.

303. John Kerin, 'Brown vows to hold State referendum on republic', The

Australian, 21 June 1995.

304. James Murray, 'Archbishop backs Keating on president', The Australian,

4 July 1995.

305. Maurice Byers, 'Presidential poll will lead to chaos', The Australian,

5 July 1995.

306. Malcolm Fraser, 'The republic: an idea whose time will come', The

Australian, 30 August 1995.

307. Joanne Painter, 'ACTU united in support for republic plans', The Age,

28 September 1995.

308. Geoff Kitney and Michael Millett, 'Hayden lashes PM's republic', The

Sydney Morning Herald, 26 October 1995.

309. Brian Toohey, 'Figureheads are pretty expensive', The Australian

Financial Review, 3 November 1995.

310. Innes Willox, 'PM links republic to N-tests', The Age, 4 November

1995.

311. AAP, 'Republic diversion tactic: Howard', The Canberra Times, 5

November 1995.

312. Editorial, The Age, 9 November 1995.

313. Michael Gordon and Dennis Shanahan, 'PM's president more powerful than

Kerr Libs', The Australian, 11 November 1995.

314. Graham Cooke, 'Examining republic choices', The Canberra Times, 14

November 1995.

315. Patrick Lawnham, 'Republican debate tunes out of warring royals' soap

opera', The Australian, 22 November 1995.

316. 'Queen's role "bizarre"', The West-Australian, 24 November 1995.

317. Sandra McKay, 'Cowen supports a full republic', The Age, 29 November

1995.

318. Gabrielle Chan, 'UK envoy warns on republic debate', The Australian,

12 December 1995.

319. Michael Gordon, 'Howard offers vision on national identity', The

Australian, 14 December 1995.

320. Peter Rees, 'People's President', The Sunday Telegraph, 17 December

1995.

321. Rachel Gibson, 'Republic debate is unaffected, rivals agree', The Age,

22 December 1995.

322. Bernard Lane, 'Public urged to debate reforms', The Australian, 1

January 1996.

323. Sandra McKay, 'Outrage over queen-sized RSL row', The Age, 17 January

1996.

324. Editorial, 'Carr acts to modernise the governor', The Australian, 17

January 1996.

325. Amanda Meade, 'Opposition seeks vote on changes', The Australian, 17

January 1996.

326. Randal Markey and Tamara Hunter, 'It's a Keating plot: Downer', The

West-Australian, 18 January 1996.

327. Geoff Kitney and Tony Wright, 'Keating refuses to back down over

republic', The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 February 1996.

328. 'Republic for debate', The Canberra Times, 11 February 1996.

329. 'Fischer deflects hint of Coalition rift over republic direction', The

Canberra Times, 13 February 1996.

330. Cameron Stewart, 'Broaden scope of plebiscite question', The

Australian, 15 February 1996.

331. Senator Cheryl Kernot, 'Australian Democrats, press release 96/107, 14

February 1996.

332. Kendall Hill, 'But it's only a toy, Howard tells nation', The Age, 15

February 1996.

333. Ross Peake, 'Now it's a soft republic push', The Canberra Times, 15

February 1996.

334. Michelle Grattan, 'Majority favours Australian head of state, poll

finds', The Age, 20 February 1996.

335. Stephen Lunn, 'Monarchists decry Carr's "republic by stealth"', The

Australian, 1 March 1996.

Parliamentary Research Service