Republicanism in Australia
|This article needs additional or better citations for verification. (January 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
||This article or section may contain misleading parts. (June 2017)|
|Part of the Politics series on|
Republicanism in Australia is a movement to change Australia's system of government from a constitutional monarchy to a republic. Republicanism was first espoused in Australia before Federation in 1901. After a period of decline after Federation, the movement again became prominent at the end of the 20th century after successive legal and socio-cultural changes loosened Australia's ties with the United Kingdom.
Politically, republicanism is officially supported by the Labor Party and the Greens, and is also supported by some Liberal Party members of the Australian parliament including leader and prime minister Malcolm Turnbull. In a referendum in 1999, Australian voters rejected a proposal to establish a republic with a parliamentary appointed head of state.
- 1 History
- 2 Arguments To Stay
- 3 Arguments for change
- 4 Proposals for change
- 5 Public opinion
- 6 Party political positions
- 7 See also
- 8 References
- 9 External links
In his journal The Currency Lad, first published in Sydney in 1832, pastoralist Horatio Wills was the first person to openly espouse Australian republicanism. Born to a convict father, Wills was devoted to the emancipist cause and called for Australia to be an independent nation like the United States. His son Tom Wills was a founder of Australian rules football.
Some leaders and participants of the revolt at the Eureka Stockade in 1854 held republican views and the incident has been used to encourage republicanism in subsequent years, the Eureka Flag appearing in connection with some republican groups. The Australian Republican Association (ARA) was founded in response, advocating the abolition of governors and their titles; the revision of the penal code; payment of members of parliament; nationalisation of land; and an independent federal Australian republic outside of the British Empire. At the same time, a movement emerged in favour of a "White Australia" policy; however British authorities in Whitehall were opposed to segregational laws. To circumvent Westminster, those in favour of the discriminatory policies backed the proposed secession from the Empire as a republic. One attendee of the ARA meetings was the Australian-born poet Henry Lawson, who wrote his first poem, entitled A Song of the Republic, in The Republican journal.
|“||Banish from under your bonny skies
Those old-world errors and wrongs and lies
|— Henry Lawson, A Song of the Republic|
Federation and decline
At the Australian Federation Convention which produced in Sydney in 1891 the first draft that was to become the Australian constitution, a former Premier of New South Wales, George Dibbs, described as the "inevitable destiny of the people of this great country" the establishment of "the Republic of Australia".
However, the fervour of republicanism tailed off in the 1890s as the labour movement became concerned with the federation of Australia. The republican movement dwindled further during and after World War I. Emotionally, patriotic support for the war effort went hand in hand with a renewal of loyalty to the monarchy. The Bulletin abandoned republicanism and became a conservative, Empire loyalist paper. The Returned and Services League formed in 1916 and became an important bastion of monarchist sentiment.
The conservative parties were fervently monarchist and, although the Labor Party campaigned for greater Australian independence within the Empire and generally supported the appointment of Australians as governor-general, it did not question the monarchy itself. Under the Labor government of John Curtin, a member of the Royal Family, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, was appointed governor-general during World War II. The royal tour of Queen Elizabeth II in 1954 saw a reported 7 million Australians (out of a total population of 9 million) out to see her.
||This section contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. (January 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
|This section needs additional or better citations for verification. (January 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
Reflecting re-orientation of trade flows in the 1950s and 1960s, Britain had decided in the late 1960s to re-orientate its trade and economic policy from the Commonwealth of Nations to the European Economic Community, and the 1960s and early 1970s saw a corresponding further reduction in the economic relationship between Britain and the major realms, including Australia. In 1967, the pound sterling was devalued, but Australia did not follow suit, instead moving to a peg between the Australian dollar and the pound sterling at a different rate. In 1971, Australia switched its peg altogether, to the United States dollar, and in June 1972 Britain responded to this and other changes resulting from Britain's shrinking economic presence in the world by shrinking the sterling area, effectively ending the former monetary union.
The election of a Labor majority in 1972 marked the end of a period where Australians saw themselves principally as part of the Commonwealth of Nations (formerly the British Empire), with the Whitlam government implementing a number of reforms that strengthened Australia's independent nationhood.
The Whitlam government ended in 1975 with a constitutional crisis in which Governor-General John Kerr dismissed the ministry and appointed Opposition Leader Malcolm Fraser as prime minister, an act in which the monarch herself was not consulted and, when approached after the event, pointedly refused to intervene, noting that she lacked authority to do so under the Australian constitution. The incident, though, raised questions about the value of maintaining a supposedly "symbolic" office that still possessed many key political powers and what an Australian president with the same reserve powers would do in a similar situation.
Australia Act and other changes
||This section contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. (January 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
|This section needs additional or better citations for verification. (January 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
Moves elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Nations continued to dilute the ties between its members, including between Britain and Australia. In 1982, Britain changed its citizenship laws to remove Commonwealth citizens (and United KIngdom citizens, now to be British citizens) from the definition of "British subject", which until then was a status shared by all Commonwealth citizens. Like its late acceptance of the Statute of Westminster, Australia was once again one of the last Commonwealth countries to adopt the change in its own laws: the category "British subjects" was abolished in Australian law only in 1987.
In 1986, the Australia Act was enacted, thereafter eliminating the remaining, mainly theoretical, ties between the legislature and judiciary of the United Kingdom and the Australian states. It was later determined by the High Court in Sue v Hill that this legislation established Britain and Australia as independent nations sharing the same person as their relevant sovereign.
At broadly the same time, references to the monarchy were being removed from various institutions. For example, in 1993, the Oath of Citizenship, which included an assertion of allegiance to the Australian monarch, was replaced by a pledge to be loyal to "Australia and its people". Further, the state of Queensland deleted all references to the monarchy from its legislation, with new laws being enacted by its parliament and "binding on the State of Queensland," not the Crown. (Other states, and the Commonwealth, later made similar changes.)
Barristers in New South Wales (from 1993), Queensland (from 1994), ACT (from 1995), Victoria (from 2000), Western Australia (from 2001), Tasmania (from 2005), Northern Territory (from 2007), Commonwealth (from March 2007) and South Australia (from 2008) were no longer appointed Queen's Counsel (QC), but as Senior Counsel (SC). Many monarchists condemned these changes as moves to a "republic by stealth". However beginning with Queensland in 2013 and then followed by Victoria and the Commonwealth in 2014, the title of Queen's Counsel (QC) has again been conferred. Currently South Australia and New South Wales are discussing the reintroduction.   
Nevertheless, all Australian senators and members of the House of Representatives continue to swear "to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty" before taking their seats in parliament; as a part of the constitution, any changes to this oath could only be approved by a referendum.
Keating government proposals
The Australian Labor Party (ALP) first made republicanism its official policy in 1991, with then Prime Minister Bob Hawke describing a republic as "inevitable". Following the ALP decision, the Australian Republican Movement, the leading republican advocacy group, was born. Hawke's successor, Paul Keating, pursued the republican agenda much more actively than Hawke and established the Republic Advisory Committee to produce an options paper on issues relating to the possible transition to a republic to take effect on the centenary of federation: 1 January 2001. The committee produced its report in April 1993 and in it argued that "a republic is achievable without threatening Australia's cherished democratic institutions."
In response to the report, Keating promised a referendum on the establishment of a republic, replacing the governor-general with a president, and removing references to the Australian sovereign. The president was to be nominated by the prime minister and appointed by a two-thirds majority in a joint sitting of the Senate and House of Representatives. The referendum was to be held either in 1998 or 1999. However, Keating's party lost the 1996 federal election in a land slide and he was replaced by John Howard, a monarchist, as prime minister.
1998 Constitutional Convention
With the change in government in 1996, Prime Minister John Howard proceeded with an alternative policy of holding a constitutional convention. This was held over two weeks in February 1998 at Old Parliament House. Half of the 152 delegates were elected and half were appointed by the federal and state governments. Convention delegates were asked whether or not Australia should become a republic and which model for a republic is preferred. At the opening of the convention, Howard stated that if the convention could not decide on a model to be put to a referendum, then plebiscites would be held on the model preferred by the Australian public.
At the convention, a republic gained majority support (89 votes to 52 with 11 abstentions), but the question of what model for a republic should be put to the people at a referendum produced deep divisions among republicans. Four republican models were debated: two involving direct election of the head of state; one involving appointment on the advice of the prime minister (the McGarvie Model); and one involving appointment by a two-thirds majority of parliament (the bi-partisan appointment model).
The latter was eventually successful at the convention, even though it only obtained a majority because of 22 abstentions in the final vote (57 against delegates voted against the model and 73 voted for, three votes short of an actual majority of delegates). A number of those who abstained were republicans who supported direct election (such as Ted Mack, Phil Cleary, Clem Jones, and Andrew Gunter), thereby allowing the bi-partisan model to succeed. They reasoned that the model would be defeated at a referendum and a second referendum called with direct election as the model.
According to critics, the two-week timeline and quasi-democratic composition of the convention is evidence of an attempt by John Howard to frustrate the republican cause, a claim John Howard adamantly rejects.
1999 Republican referendum
The republic referendum was held on 6 November 1999, after a national advertising campaign and the distribution of 12.9 million 'Yes/No' case pamphlets. It comprised two questions: The first asked whether Australia should become a republic in which the governor-general and monarch would be replaced by one office, the President of the Commonwealth of Australia, the occupant elected by a two-thirds vote of the Australian parliament for a fixed term. The second question, generally deemed to be far less important politically, asked whether Australia should alter the constitution to insert a preamble. Neither of the amendments passed, with 55% of all electors and all states voting 'no' to the proposed amendment; it was not carried in any state. The preamble referendum question was also defeated, with a Yes vote of only 39 per cent.
Many opinions were put forward for the defeat, some relating to perceived difficulties with the parliamentary appointment model, others relating to the lack of public engagement or that most Australians were simply happy to keep the status quo. Some republicans voted no because they did not agree with provisions such as the president being instantly dismissible by the prime minister.
Following the referendum
On 26 June 2003, the Senate referred an inquiry into an Australian republic to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee. During 2004, the committee reviewed 730 submissions and conducted hearings in all state capitals. The committee tabled its report, called Road to a Republic, on 31 August 2004.
The report examined the contest between minimalist and direct-election models and gave attention to hybrid models such as the electoral college model, the constitutional council model, and models having both an elected president and a governor-general.
The bi-partisan recommendations of committee supported educational initiatives and holding a series of plebiscites to allow the public to choose which model they preferred, prior to a final draft and referendum, along the lines of plebiscites proposed by John Howard at the 1998 constitutional convention.
Issues related to republicanism were raised by the March 2006 tour of Australia by Queen Elizabeth II. Then John Howard, still serving as prime minister, was questioned by British journalists about the future of the monarchy in Australia and there was debate about playing Australia's royal anthem, "God Save the Queen", during the opening of the that year's Commonwealth Games, at which the monarch was present.
In the lead-up to the 2010 federal election, then Prime Minister Julia Gillard stated "I believe that this nation should be a republic. I also believe that this nation has got a deep affection for Queen Elizabeth." It was her view that it would be appropriate for Australia to become a republic only once Queen Elizabeth II's reign ends. On the process for becoming a republic, Gillard said "What I would like to see as the prime minister is that we work our way through to an agreement on a republic." In 2010, then opposition leader Tony Abbott, who previously served as Executive Director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, supported the status quo. He opined: "While there may very well be further episodes of republicanism in this country, I am far from certain that, at least in our lifetimes, there's likely to be any significant change."
In early 2015, leading up to Australia Day, opposition leader Bill Shorten called for a new push for Australia to become a republic. Former ARM chair Malcolm Turnbull said upon his appointment as prime minister in September of the same year he would not pursue "his dream" of Australia becoming a republic until after the end of the Queen's reign, instead focusing his efforts toward the economy. A majority of parliamentarians currently support Australia becoming a republic.
Arguments To Stay
⁃ respect the history of Australia
⁃ Hold strong relations with the United Kingdom (a powerful, rich and influential country). This not only promises for strong military support in most cases but also allows us to utilise them in creating deals with their allies. Also this makes it easier to trade with them and travelling and obtaining work in the UK is easier than what many other countries have to go through.
⁃ Assists with international relations with other countries as well. This occurs because someone who symbolises/ embodies the country can assist with negotiations without dictating if what the government did was alright. It is going to be hard to build diplomatic bridges if you are the ones who bombed the country previously for example and a monarch can be very useful in assisting in this area.
⁃ Monarchies also stop extremist individuals rising to power. People like Hitler would have a far less chance at staying their countries leaders. This occurs because whilst monarchies do not hold any real power as explained in my next point they can technically dismiss Prime Ministers if there was a large public opinion, the government or if the UN for example was behind them due to 'incapacity to complete the necessary duties' (don't worry this does not mean they can just get rid of someone they don't like as constitutionally it must be as just stated due to 'incapacity') because they would see it as a very important thing that must be done and the way to get it done is through the monarchy. This however is an unlikely occurrence to happen anyway as it would put the country into unrest. However, in the extreme case in which a Prime Minister is not serving his/her duties in a capable manner it would be a very beneficial act but as stated they would need proper support coming from mainly the public and the government itself but also the UN in certain cases.
⁃ The British Monarchy is a Constitutional Monarchy meaning it is much like Japan's system in which they play a purely symbolic role and we activate just as if we were a complete republic. Meaning that Australia is in control of itself and is indeed independent. Not to mention Australia actually has two heads of state, with one of them obviously being the current leading British monarch and the other being the current Prime Minister proving that we are indeed in control of ourselves. (Arguably the biggest sign of this is that the Queen accepted and signed the bill for the UK to leave the European Union even though the UK's economic future would be largely at risk and it doesn't give her or the monarchy more power or influence by saying no to it, it may even weaken it as their country may possibly become weaker)
⁃ Since the British Monarchy as mentioned has no real power they can not abuse anyone. But this is also cemented in the 3 clauses left today in the Magna Carta created in 1215 protecting people against possible mistreatments by the monarchy. And the monarchy became officially a constitutional monarchy in 1688
⁃ They Monarchy whilst having no real power has the most valued opinion you could say in diplomatic areas. This can be very useful as they can hear the complaints/ issues to do with the country and can put them forward to the current government or to world organisations with an unbiased view that benefits the people of the country. Making sure that the country is properly heard
⁃ They are a living embodiment of national pride and unity, whilst some would argue that it is the wrong national pride like mentioned before they represent Australia's past and so many people would say it is the correct national pride
⁃ In times of war they can inspire a nation. Imagine your country has been at war for a long time and people are ant to pull out or no one else wants to sign up for the army but they need to continue the war for the greater good. Sure a speech from the Prime Minister/ President could inspire some people but most people in war times blame the government for them not succeeding at this point in time also about half the country wouldn't have voted for them. Whilst a Monarchy does not experience these issues and since they are as mentioned before a living embodiment of the country they can inspire people through speeches or even visiting or fighting on the front line like most monarchies have done for the past 100 years. A prime minister/ President would almost never risk their lives going out on the battlefield as if they are killed then it can put the country into even more issues but a Monarchy can go without this issue.
⁃ Monarchies assist with a lot of charities and raise a lot of money and awareness. Whilst it is true that this is mainly in the UK thing such as the Invictus Games which is a kind of 'Military Veterans Olympic Games' are supported heavily by the monarchy especially through Prince Harry
⁃ They also represent the country and politicians at several occasions especially to do with speaking with the average person and opening several sites and speaking with foreign nationals what not. They actually do this almost everyday and this allows other politicians to continue their work.
⁃ The queen will also hold private audiences with foreign ambassadors and leaders from around the world closeining their relationship
Other things to also be noted:
⁃ people think that the UK citizens have to pay money to the monarchy but in reality they don't. The monarchy created a deal with the British government years ago whereby the monarchy gives them the right to a large portion of their lands which are worth around 200 million pounds annually in exchange for 40 million pounds annually meaning that the monarchy actually makes the UK citizens taxes cheaper and essentially gifts the government 160 million pounds a year for free.
⁃ Every week the U.K. Prime minister and the head of the monarchy meet in private for an hour and discuss domestic and international problems and challenges and former Prime Minister David Cameron has stated that talking with someone outside the political process is "an incredibly useful exercise" and he has also said "it is of great benefit to me" with the reason being "because I find it helps sort out the problems in my own head about the things we need to do". This whole process makes the UK government more efficient and focused which not only assists them but assists their allies
⁃ The monarchy has several awards which are there to honour both the citizens of the UK and international citizens for their achievements and is something special and unique compared to other awards especially because you can change your name to include them in it. Without these awards from the monarchy many would go unrewarded or people would not care about the achievement especially in terms of awards that are granted due to achievement in a certain academic field, such as David Attenborough's knighthood for his contribution to life science. The giving of awards to other international citizens also assists in international relations.
⁃ Accumulate billions for the country due to tourism and TV shows and movies being made about them
⁃ They do far more than you could imagine in a societal and political sense. To get a full scope of just how important and time consuming their jobs are you should check out their website - royal.uk and even princeofwales.gov.uk
⁃ Without the monarchy the commonwealth might cease to exist as they were largely a part of founding it not to mention still have an ongoing role in the heads of government meeting between the commonwealth countries. Once again proving that the queen has a large influence and assists with global diplomacy
Arguments for change
Independence and head of state
A central argument made by Australian republicans is that, as Australia is an independent country, it is inappropriate for Australia to share the person of its monarch with the United Kingdom. Republicans argue that the Australian monarch is not Australian and, as such, a person who is a national of another country cannot adequately represent Australia, either to itself or to the rest of the world. Former Chief Justice Gerard Brennan stated that "so long as we retain the existing system our head of state is determined for us essentially by the parliament at Westminster". As Australian Republican Movement member Frank Cassidy put it in a speech on the issue: "In short, we want a resident for President."
Multiculturalism and sectarianism
Republicans associate the monarchy with British identity and subsequently argue that Australia has changed demographically and culturally, from being "British to our bootstraps", as prime minister Robert Menzies once put it, to being less British, albeit maintaining an "English Core". For some Australians not of British ancestry, they argue, the idea of one person being both monarch of Australia and of the United Kingdom is an anomaly. It is also claimed[by whom?] that there are some Aborigines and some Australians of Irish origin who see the Australian Crown as a symbol of British imperialism.
However, monarchists argue that immigrants who left unstable republics and have arrived in Australia since 1945 welcomed the social and political stability that they found in Australia under a constitutional monarchy. Further, some Aborigines, such as former Senator Neville Bonner, said a republican president would not "care one jot more for my people".
It has also been claimed monarchism and republicanism in Australia delineate historical and persistent sectarian tensions with, broadly speaking, Catholics more likely to be republicans and Protestants more likely to be monarchists. This developed out of a historical cleavage in 19th- and 20th-century Australia, in which republicans were predominantly of Irish Catholic background and loyalists were predominantly of British Protestant background. Whilst mass immigration since the Second World War has diluted this conflict, the Catholic–Protestant divide has been cited as a dynamic in the republic debate, particularly in relation to the referendum campaign in 1999. Nonetheless, others have stated that Catholic–Protestant tensions—at least in the sense of an Irish–British conflict—are at least forty years dead.
It has also been claimed, however, that the Catholic–Protestant divide is intermingled with class issues. Republicanism in Australia has traditionally been supported most strongly by members of the urban working class with Irish Catholic backgrounds, whereas monarchism is a core value associated with urban and rural inhabitants of British Protestant heritage and the middle class, to the extent that there were calls in 1999 for 300,000 exceptionally enfranchised British subjects who were not Australian citizens to be barred from voting on the grounds that they would vote as a loyalist bloc in a tight referendum.
Social values and contemporary Australia
From some perspectives, it has been argued that several characteristics of the monarchy are in conflict with modern Australian values. The hereditary nature of the monarchy is said to conflict with egalitarianism and dislike of inherited privilege. The laws of succession were, before amendment to them in 2015, held by some to be sexist and the links between the monarchy and the Church of England inconsistent with Australia's secular character. Under the Act of Settlement, the monarch is prohibited from being a Catholic. As it is constitutional, this Australian law over-rides anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit arrangements under which becoming a Catholic invalidates any legal rights.
Proposals for change
A typical proposal for an Australian republic provides for the Queen and governor-general to be replaced by a president or an executive federal council. There is much debate on the appointment or election process that would be used and what role such an office would have.
Methods for selecting a head of state
- by the prime minister;
- by consensus among the government and opposition;
- by a constitutional council.
An alternative minimalist approach to change provides for removing the sovereign and retaining the governor-general. The most notable model of this type is the McGarvie Model, while Copernican models replace the monarch with a directly-elected figurehead. These Copernican models allow for regular and periodic elections for the office of head of state while limiting the reserve powers to the appointed governor-general only. A popularly elected head of state would have the same powers as the monarch, but he or she could not dismiss the prime minister. If this were to happen, it would be a first, as all other former Commonwealth realms have created presidencies upon becoming republics.
Australians for Constitutional Monarchy and the Australian Monarchist League argue that no model is better than the present system and argue that the risk and difficulty of changing the constitution is best demonstrated by inability of republicans to back a definitive design.
From its foundation until the 1999 referendum, the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) supported the bi-partisan appointment model, which would result in a President elected by the Parliament of Australia, with the powers currently held by the Governor-General. It is argued that the requirement of a two-thirds majority in a vote of both houses of parliament would result in a bi-partisan appointment, preventing a party politician from becoming president.
The ARM now supports a non-binding plebiscite to decide the model, followed by a binding referendum to amend the Constitution, reflecting the model chosen. Opponents of holding non-binding plebiscites include monarchist David Flint, who described this process as "inviting a vote of no confidence in one of the most successful constitutions in the world," and minimalist republican Greg Craven, who states "a multi-option plebiscite inevitably will produce a direct election model, precisely for the reason that such a process favours models with shallow surface appeal and multiple flaws. Equally inevitably, such a model would be doomed at referendum."
Polls and surveys generate different responses depending on the wording of the questions, mostly in regards the type of republic, and often appear contradictory. In May 2008, a Morgan poll found 45% believe Australia should become a republic with an elected president, while 42% support Australia remaining a monarchy and 13% are undecided.
The Australian Electoral Survey that is conducted following all elections by the Australian National University has found that support for a republic has remained reasonably static since 1987 at around 60%, if the type of republic is not part of the question. The Electoral Survey also shows that support or opposition is relatively weak: 31% strongly support a republic while only 10% strongly oppose.
An opinion poll held in November 2008 that separated the questions found support for a republic at 50% with 28% opposed. Asked how the president should be chosen if there were to be a republic, 80 percent said elected by the people, against 12 percent who favoured appointment by parliament. In October 2009 another poll by UMR found 59% support for a republic and 33% opposition. 73% supported direct election, versus 18% support for parliamentary appointment.
- 48% of the 1400 respondents were opposed to constitutional change (a rise of 8 per cent since 2008)
- 44% supported change (a drop of 8 per cent since 2008).
But when asked which of the following statements best described their view:
- 31% said Australia should never become a republic.
- 29% said Australia should become a republic as soon as possible.
- 34% said Australia should become a republic only after Queen Elizabeth II's reign ends.
A survey of 1,000 readers of The Sun-Herald and The Sydney Morning Herald, published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 21 November 2010, found 68% of respondents were in favour of Australia becoming a republic, while 25% said it should not. More than half the respondents, 56%, said Australia should become a republic as soon as possible while 31% said it should happen after the Queen dies.
However, an opinion poll conducted in 2011 saw a sharp decline in the support for an Australian republic. The polling conducted by the Morgan Poll in May 2011 showed the support for the monarchy was now 55% (up 17% since 1999), whereas the support for a republic was at 34% (down 20%). The turnaround in support for a republic has been called the "strange death of Australian republicanism".
A poll taken in the wake of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee found that support for the monarchy is at a twenty-five-year high. 58% of respondents supported the monarchy whereas 35% supported a republic.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Vote Compass during the Australian federal election, 2013 found that 40.4% of respondents disagreed with the statement "Australia should end the monarchy and become a republic" 40.4% disagreed (26.3% strongly disagreed), whilst 38.1% agreed (23.1% strongly agreed) and 21.5% were neutral. Support for a republic was highest among those with a left-leaning political ideology. Younger people had the highest rate for those neutral towards the statement (27.8%) with their support for strongly agreed the lowest of all age groups at 17.1%. Support for a republic was highest in the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria and lowest in Queensland and Western Australia. More men than women said they support a republic.
In early 2014, a ReachTEL poll of 2,146 Australian conducted just after Australia Day showed only 39.4% supported a republic with 41.6% opposed. Lowest support was in the 65+ year cohort followed by the 18–34-year cohort. Geoff Gallop, the then chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, said higher support for a republic among Generation X and baby boomer voters could be explained by them having participated in the 1999 referendum and remembering the 1975 constitutional crisis.
In April 2014, a poll found that "support for an Australian republic has slumped to its lowest level in more than three decades"; namely, on the eve of the visit to Australia by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and Prince George of Cambridge, 42% of those polled agreed with the statement that "Australia should become a republic", whereas 51% opposed.
ARM commissioned a poll to be conducted by Essential Research from 5 to 8 November in 2015, asking "When Prince Charles becomes King of Australia, will you support or oppose replacing the British monarch with an Australian citizen as Australia's head of state?" Of the 1008 participants, 51% said they would prefer an Australian head of state to "King Charles", 27% opposed and 22% were undecided. However it should be noted that the poll focused on the popularity of a future potential king rather than a republic and no similar poll referencing Prince William was commissioned for comparison.
The Australian has polled the same question "Are you personally in favour or against Australia becoming a republic?" multiple times since 1999 though it hadn't polled it since 2011. After Australia Day 2016 they found 51% support. This level of support was similar to levels found between 1999 and 2003 by the same newspaper. Total against was 37% which was an increase over the rates polled in all previous polls other than 2011. Uncommitted at 12% was the lowest ever polled. However support was again lowest in the 18–34-year cohort. 
A 2016 poll released by the ANU Australian Electoral Study found 53% support for an Australian head of state.
Party political positions
The Liberal Party is a conservative and classical liberal party. The former generally favours the status quo, the latter favours republicanism. Proponents of republicanism in the Liberal Party include: its current leader and former leader of the Australian Republican Movement Malcolm Turnbull, as well as Joe Hockey and Peter Costello. Supporters of the status quo include former leader and former ACM Leader, Tony Abbott, former opposition leaders Alexander Downer and Brendan Nelson, and Sophie Mirabella.
The National Party has few republicans, its former leader, Tim Fischer being the leading example. A conservative party with a rural base, its core constituency has always been strongly monarchist. As such, it remains against change as official policy.
Under former Prime Minister John Howard, a monarchist, the government initiated a process to settle the republican debate, involving a constitutional convention and a referendum. Howard, who supports the status quo, says the matter was resolved by the failure of the referendum.
Australian Labor Party
Labor has supported constitutional change to become a republic since 1991 and has incorporated republicanism into its platform. Labor is currently the only party that proposes a series of plebiscites to restart the republican process. Along with this, Labor spokesperson (and former federal attorney general) Nicola Roxon has previously said that reform will "always fail if we seek to inflict a certain option on the public without their involvement. This time round, the people must shape the debate".
The Australian Greens party is a strong proponent for an Australian republic, and this is reflected in the Greens 'Constitutional Reform & Democracy' policy. In the Senate, the Greens proposed legislation to hold a plebiscite on the republic at the 2010 federal election.[needs update]
The Australian Democrats, formerly Australia's third party, strongly supported a move towards a republic through a system of an elected Head of State through popular voting. However, the party was deregistered in 2015 due to a decline in membership.
The Science Party, a minor political party, heavily supports a move towards a republic through replacing the Governor-General with a President. They see having a monarchy in Australia outdated in the 21st century.
- Australians for Constitutional Monarchy
- Australian Republican Movement
- Australian Constitutional History
- Australian constitutional law
- Constitution of Australia
- Process model (Australia)
- Australian flag debate
- Australian head of state dispute
- Quebec sovereignty movement
- McKenna 1996, p. 22–26
- "Eureka – Australia's Historical Distraction". Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. 10 August 2004. Retrieved 13 June 2010.
- "Flint, David; ''A White Republic''; December 9, 2006". Norepublic.com.au. 10 December 2006. Retrieved 13 June 2010.
- Mark McKenna. The Captive Republic : A History of Republicanism in Australia 1788–1996 (Studies in Australian History).
- British Imperialism and Australian Nationalism: Manipulation, Chapter 5. Luke Trainer, 1994
- Justice Kirby: The Australian Republican Referendum 1999 – Ten Lessons, 3 March 2000 Source
- D.Day, Claiming a Continent, Harper Collins 1997, pp. 384–385
- McKenna, Mark. "The Traditions of Australian Republicanism". Parliament of Australia. Retrieved 25 April 2014.
- Paul Keating (7 June 1995). "An Australian Republic – The Way Forward". australianpolitics.com. Archived from the original on 10 September 2011.
- "Constitutional Convention Hansard" (PDF). Parliament of Australia. 2 February 1998. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 January 2011. Retrieved 22 February 2011.
- Vizard, Steve, Two Weeks in Lilliput: Bear Baiting and Backbiting At the Constitutional Convention (Penguin, 1998, ISBN 0-14-027983-0)
- "Constitutional Convention- results". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 22 February 2011.
- Malcolm Turnbull (1999). Fighting For the Republic. HGB. p. 32.
-  Archived 18 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine.
- "PM's comments fuel republic debate". ABC Local Radio. 15 March 2006. Retrieved 6 July 2008.
- "Anthem decision 'not protocol breach'". Herald Sun. 28 February 2006. Archived from the original on 19 March 2007. Retrieved 6 July 2008.
- "No 'God Save The Queen' at Games". AdelaideNow... 27 February 2006. Retrieved 6 July 2008.[dead link]
- Jacob Saulwick (17 August 2010). "Once Queen goes, let's have a republic: Gillard". The Sydney Morning Herald.
- "Australia's Gillard backs republic after Queen's death". BBC World. 17 August. Retrieved 19 August 2010. Check date values in:
- http://www.progressive-australia.org/news/overwhelming_support_for_australian_republic_in_wake_of_prince_philip_knighting/2015-01-26-19[full citation needed]
- Dunlevy, Sue (21 September 2015). "Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's new cabinet to be sworn in today". The Courier-Mail. Retrieved 22 September 2015.
- "Majority of parliamentarians support australian republic".
- Monarchy v Republic, P. Costello from Options editor C. Pyne
- Official Committee Hansard, Senate, Legal and Constitutional References Committee, 13 April 2004, Sydney, p21  Archived 4 February 2012 at the Wayback Machine.
- Address by Frank Cassidy Part of "Australia Consults" community debates, Saturday 25 January 1997: Source
- Road to a republic, p5 Archived 25 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine.
- The birth of the Republic of Australia, B. Peach 6 May 2005
- Road to a republic, p6 Archived 25 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine.
- "Neville Bonner; speech to the Constitutional Convention; 4 February 1998". Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. 5 February 1998. Retrieved 13 June 2010.
- Knightley, Philip. Australia: A Biography of a Nation. London: Vintage (2001).
- Rickard, John. Australia: A Cultural History. London: Longman (1996)
- Henderson, Gerard (5 October 2004). "New Life for that Old Time Sectarianism". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 30 January 2011.
- "The Religion Report: Sectarianism Australian style". Radio National. 3 September 2003. Archived from the original on 4 July 2008. Retrieved 6 July 2008.
- Rickard. Australia (1996).
- "British Subjects Eligibility". Australian Electoral Commission. 3 August 2007. Retrieved 6 July 2008.
- "Ausflag calls for Brits to be barred from republic referendum". The World Today. 1 September 1999. Retrieved 6 July 2008.
- Road to a Republic, p5 Archived 25 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine.
- Road to a Republic. Senate Printing Unit. 2004. pp. 107–108, 128–129. ISBN 0-642-71441-X.
- Road to a Republic, p106 Archived 5 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine.
- "Australian Republican Movement Policy". February 2010. Archived from the original on 18 February 2011. Retrieved 15 February 2011.
- "Senate Inquiry Invites No Confidence Vote in Our Constitution!". Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. 31 August 2004. Retrieved 6 July 2008.
- Craven, Greg (25 March 2004). "Inquiry into an Australian Republic" (PDF). Curtin University of Technology. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 June 2008. Retrieved 6 July 2008.
- "Now Only 45% of Australians Want a Republic with an Elected President (Down 6% Since 2001)". Roy Morgan International. 5 July 2008. Archived from the original on 25 July 2008. Retrieved 6 July 2008.
- The Trajectory of the Australian Republic Debate pdf. Senate Lecture Transcript 6 March 2009 Archived 29 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine.
- "Australian Republic Opinion Poll" (PDF). UMR Research. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 July 2011.
- "UMR poll October 2009". ARM. Archived from the original on 28 February 2011. Retrieved 27 February 2011.
- Wright, Jessica (29 August 2010). "Not read for a republic we are not amused". The Sydney Morning Herald.
- Tim Barlass (21 November 2010). "Big hopes for crown's new jewel". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 29 January 2011.
- Roy Morgan Research (8 October 2011). "Australia's Constitutional Future: Opinion Polling" (PDF). Roy Morgan Research. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 October 2011. Retrieved 9 October 2011.
- Kathy Marks (20 October 2011). "Strange death of Australian republicanism". The Independent. Retrieved 9 June 2012.
- "Australian support for monarchy hits 25-year high". Herald Sun. 9 June 2012. Retrieved 9 June 2012.
- "Vote Compass explorer: What Australians think about the big political issues". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 11 November 2013. Retrieved 23 November 2013.
- "Republican cause takes heavy knock in poll". The Sydney Morning Herald. 2 February 2014. Retrieved 27 March 2016.
- "Republican movement wanes amid royal revival". The Sydney Morning Herald. 15 April 2014. Retrieved 17 April 2014.
- "King Charles? Majority of Australians support a republic instead of Queen Elizabeth's successor". The Sydney Morning Herald. 11 November 2015. Retrieved 27 March 2016.
- "AM Archive - Tim Fischer reignites Republican debate with new referendum options".
- "ARM Sydney Speakers Series: Labor's Policy on the Republic: July 2004". Archived from the original on 20 August 2006. Retrieved 9 August 2006.
- "Constitutional Reform and Democracy". 26 June 2013.
- "Greens urge Rudd to commit to republic plebiscite". ABC News. 24 January 2009.
- "Greens push for vote on republic". Archived from the original on 7 November 2011. Retrieved 17 November 2008.
- "The Australian Democrats". Australian Electoral Commission. 16 April 2015. Retrieved 25 April 2015.
- "Governor-General and the Australian Republic". 24 May 2017. Retrieved 24 May 2017.
- An Australian republic: The options: the report of the Republic Advisory Committee, Parliamentary paper / Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (1993)
- Booker, M., A Republic of Australia: What Would it Mean, Left Book Club Co-operative Ltd, Sydney (1992)
- Costella, John P., A Republic For All Australians (2004) online version
- Flint,David, The Cane Toad Republic Wakefield Press (1999)
- Goot, Murray, "Contingent Inevitability: Reflections on the Prognosis for Republicanism" (1994) in George Winterton (ed), We, the People: Australian Republican Government (1994), pp 63–96
- Hirst, John., A Republican Manifesto, Oxford University Press (1994)
- Keating, P. J., An Australian Republic: The Way Forward, Australian Government Publishing Service (1995)
- Mackay, Hugh, Turning Point. Australians Choosing Their Future, Pan Macmillan, Sydney, New South Wales, C. 18, 'Republic. The people have their say.' (1999) ISBN 0-7329-1001-3
- McGarvie, Richard E., Democracy: Choosing Australia's Republic (1999)
- McKenna, Mark, The Captive Republic: A History of Republicanism in Australia 1788–1996 (1998)
- McKenna, Mark, The Traditions of Australian Republicanism (1996) online version
- McKenna, Mark, The Nation Reviewed (March 2008, The Monthly) online version
- Stephenson, M. and Turner, C. (eds.), Australia Republic or Monarchy? Legal and Constitutional Issues, University of Queensland Press (1994)
- Vizard, Steve, Two Weeks in Lilliput: Bear Baiting and Backbiting At the Constitutional Convention (Penguin, 1998, ISBN 0-14-027983-0)
- Warden, J., "The Fettered Republic: The Anglo American Commonwealth and the Traditions of Australian Political Thought," Australian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 28, 1993. pp. 84–85.
- Wark, McKenzie, The Virtual Republic: Australia's Culture Wars of the 1990s (1998)
- Winterton, George (ed), We, the People: Australian Republican Government, Allen & Unwin (1994),
- Woldring, Klaas, Australia: Republic or US Colony? (2006)