Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
A poll published in the Sun Herald today reported that support for a republic had slipped even though, consistent with previous polls on this issue, at least 63% of Australians support a republic, or around 2/3 of the population.
THE MOST recent extensive polling done on this topic, by UMR Research* in October last year, showed 59% of Australians want an Australian republic
Support for the monarchy was at 31%, which was also consistent with the UMR Research figure of 29% recorded last year.
The newspapers have picked up a number of 44%, which seems to be in response to the question “do you want a republic now”. This question is misleading as it excludes the many republicans who feel we should wait until the Queen’s reign ends.
People who have expressed some support for this proposition include the prime minister, Julia Gillard, the foreign minister, Stephen Smith, and the former opposition leader and chair of the ARM at the time of the 1999 referendum, Malcolm Turnbull.
The current chair of the Australian Republican Movement, Major General Michael Keating, said that he was unsurprised by the results of the research, which confirmed previous polls.
“The proportion of people who want an Australian Republic, along with those against, has not changed from the major polling work done on the republic by UMR last year,” said Major General Keating.
“All this particular poll reveals is that with the prime minister championing the notion that we should wait until the Queen dies, support for that approach has recently increased,” he said.
“Many Australians think we should wait, but are still strong republicans.”
“Malcolm Turnbull has said we should wait until the Queen dies, though I’m sure he would be a little surprised if the media reported that he was now against a republic.”
“As ever with polls, it depends on who you ask, what you ask, when you ask and the way you ask it.”
*http://www.republic.org.au/story/umr-poll-october-2009-summary
9 Comments
If the broader consensus is that republicans should wait until
Her Majesty dies before momentum begins to make Australia
a republic, then republicans should take the time to adopt a
pragmatic apolitical approach in identifying what republican
model will be sellable to the australian public. I`m eluding to
fact that a referendum for a popularly elected president with
a new constitution is the only model that has a chance of being
accepted by the broader community. The article in the Sun
Herald does not provide any distinction between the various
republican models that were mooted by the ARM prior to the
1999 referendum. The article is statistically sound but far too
generalising. Malcolm Turnbell is said to have been converted
as it were from being a proponent of a parliamentary elected
president to a popularly elected one, but that is going back a
long time now, perhaps it is time for Turnbull to confirm the
republican model he supports circa 2010. With parlimentary
accountability at an all time low, and given the fact that Aus-
tralia is already the most overly governed country on the face
of the earth, republicans have to wake up to themselves and
realise that a slim majority of australians at the very least have
some affinity with the British monarchy, and if you want a clear
majority of australians to support breaking ties with Buckingham
Palace, then a republic with a popularly elected president is the
only proposition which should be put on the table. Why would
australians empower the political elite any further in Canberra
when there is already a systematic abuse of parliamentary
privilege occuring left right and centre in every parliament
house around Australia. Think republicans think, simple!
An elected President only creates another position for politicians to (as you put it) “abuse of parliamentary privilege”.
If a person supourts a president elected by parliment they shouldnt be bullied into suppourting a directly elected president, especially if they feel its a weaker system.
I fail to see why you think Mark that having an elected president
with defined powers that fall outside legislative juristiction would
give parliamentarians another avenue to abuse parliamentary
powers. A popularly elected president would need not have
any greater authority to execute other than what the Governor-
General already holds. If the agenda of republicans is truly to
have an australian head of state in place of the Governor General,
then popularly elected or not a president of Australia would only
have to carry out the same symbolic duties that the GG is required
to do right now. The argument against having a popularly elected
president on the basis that this would cause a conflict between the
president and prime minister of the day just doesn`t stack up. No
matter if its the president or GG we are talking about, that person
should always remain seperate from any parliamentary influences.
There are no signs that most Australians have the slightest interest in Australia becoming a republic. A majority might say when polled that they favour the idea but then they go back to thinking about other things. Appeals based on the lofty concepts of maturity, identity, full independence etc etc will continue to go unheeded as most people do not feel their lives are any less fulfilled or are materially disadvantaged by the fact that Australia is not republic. And unfortunately the easy choice of ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ wins over ‘the change will be good for you’ every time.
What will change public opinion is an ongoing campaign of publication in the popular media of factual information on the costs to the taxpayer of supporting the offices – salaries, staff, travel, accommodation – of unelected Federal and State vice regal representatives, accompanied by the simple statement that there is no evidence that this cost has in the past, nor will it in the future, contribute to the security, political stabilty or economic prosperity of this country. Ultimately Australia’s fate is in its own hands and, as in 1942, no royal connection will save Australia if it is ever threatened. It is a wasted investment and should be portrayed as such. Stop fretting over what sort of republic, people must desire change first.
Of course there will be costs associated with having an Australian head of state but they will be less than those for a GG and six governors and that one head of state will have Australia’s interests as their sole concern. Journalists, start gathering the facts and get them out there!
How can you say the costs will be less?
Many republicans are against a directly elected President as it would result in a president with a mandate (they have to be elected on something).
A president would cost the same if not more than a GG. No one has sugested getting rid of the governers either, as that would require removing the states.
Mark, you are pre-empting the outcome before there is one, just like
so many republicans. A president (popularly elected or parliamentary
elected), wouldn`t neccesarily have to be elected with any sort of a
mandate because the office of president would (or at least should)
remain apolitical, and hence the most likely version of a president
which a majority of australians would support in a referendum vote
is one having the same role as a Governor-General already has. As
far as cost is concerned, it practically has nothing to do with whether
or not a president of Australia would be directly elected or elected by
the parliament, the only consideration there is how much will it cost
to physically and logistically fund the residence of the president and
to fund all the staff and security ect. which will be needed, and will
that be less than what is currently being `blown` on the Governor-
General at Yarralumla. If republicans want to give australia a truly
australian head of state, then why not provide an oppurtunity for
a non-political australian identity, like a iconic sportsperson and
the like, to be the president. Some republicans are giving their
hand away by eluding to the fact that they believe a popularly
elected president would cost more and would create a conflict
between the office of president and prime minister, because
they are effectively saying that a popularly elected president
would make the prime minister sub-ordinate in political terms.
On the issue of cost, why i ask do some republicans think that?
It is totally a question of objectivity and comparing the costs of
having a taxpayer funded president or taxpayer funder G-G,
and that question has absolutely nothing to do with how a
president of Australia would be elected. The only reason
why i give a lot more credibility to the popular elected
president hypothesis is because i do not believe that
having a parliamentary elected president is having a
truly australian head of state. All that person will be is
a political party hack who will be a YES person for the
prime minister of the day. Is that really what republicans
are wasting their time and money on to become a reality?
While an elected President should act apolitical there is no way to say that they will act as they are ment to. This is why many republicans are against a directly elected head of state.
As for cost I can hardly see how a President would cost less than a GG if as you put it they are fullfulling the same role.
And what are you saying Mark, that a president elected by a
two-thirds majority of parliament, with all the co-vert politicizations
such as fabianism, masonary and catholicism which transcends
all political loyalties across both sides of the parliament, is somehow
going to give all us ordinary australians a truly apolitical president.
Mate, i would hedge my bets on getting a more apolitical beast
as a result of a popular election. Sounds like you want to give
the politicians more power than what they already have.
Im just telling you what other republicans think. Im dont like either model, prefering our current system, however I respect a persons right to chose and dont think any person should be bullied into picking a model just because others want it.