Talk:1999 Australian republic referendum

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Missing perspective

During the time of the election nearly everybody I talked to was dissatisfied or even angry about the process of the republic being presented as a yes/no question and the perception of it being handed down from on high. Most people felt that there were multiple issues involved and it was too complex to be decided in a single referendum.

As I talked to people from all sides of the argument this seemed to be the most common theme and argument that cane up time an time again.

At the time it was never mentioned in the media (that I know of) and it is not covered in this article at all. I am assuming this was a common experience of the referendum - any feedback appreciated?

Can anyone make any suggestion on where I could put this perspective in the article and what sort of references would be required.

Otherwise the spin of the time will become historical fact. It annoyed me enough then - sigh

--Gerard c (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that it was in the media at the time? If not, check the usual suspects - Australian Political Chronicle, various academic sources, plus if anyone's written a book about the referendums. Orderinchaos 09:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a volunteer for the republican vote, I was shocked to learn the day before the vote that Malcolm Turnbull wanted to give politicians the final say as who would be the head of Australia. This changed my vote,and many others I'm sure, but is this aspect covered in the article?Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fact, the Constitutional Convention decided the question.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible mistakes

- The table at the bottom listing "Australian Referendums" - isn't the plural of referendum referenda?

- There is a quote given from a Broken Hill Miner in the analysis about sticking it up Keating without voting for Hewson - if the referendum was in 1999 how does this make sense? Keating was voted out in 1996 and there was an election in 1998 between Howard and Beazley... Hewson was already gone...

The answer to this question on the timing of the moner's comment (which I believe was made in early 1993, was that the issue of a republic was first raised by Paul Keating in 1991, and promoted for many years before it was actually put to the people in a referendum. This was supposed to soften up the electorate for a republic, but dailed to take account of the general public detestation of politicians.
I've been bold and removed the quote because it really just doesn't make sense. — mæstrosync talk&contribs, 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I am fascinated as to why the quote doesn't make sense, as it is conformity with a deeply held view of politicians in Australian culture. There are many other such examples, one being in the NSW parliament when politicians were compared to used-car salesmen. The salesmen vigorously complained at the invidious comparison, and the politicians had to be compared to used car salesmen. It can also be compared to the recent referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty, where the entire business, legal and political establishment shamelessly campaigned for a "Yes" vote in a way that made the media's role in the republic referendum look positively impartial. Many Australians, including me, cheered when the Irish vote was "NO".[reply]
It makes sense this way - what was the only election Keating won? That's right, the unlosable election against Hewson. People didnt care much for Keating but they couldn't stand Hewson. What the miner means is that the No vote was a rejection of the intellectual left wing without the repercussions of empowering the econocratic right wing. He was saying that voters didn't like the way the model was decided and presented with little acknowledgement of what the people wanted. Mdw0 (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

vandalism

Can someone please fix it


NPOV concerns

I have removed the words (except to the extent that most voted for it to be the model recommended by the constitutional convention, exactly because they saw it to be the least likely model to succeed) beginning with "exactly".

This looks like speculation, if not propaganda. If we are talking about what the monarchists themselves perceived, then we should support it with a quote from a source from a monarchist leader such as Kerry Jones.

I don't believe such a quote can be found. The voting records of the convention show that the monarchists didn't support any proposed model. They abstained. Pete 19:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is highly POV. The use of such words as "sentimental" and the unsubstantiated claims concerining opinion surveys betray the writer's bias. 203.0.223.244 23:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned that the controversy of the entire vote is understated. The newspapers of the day (at least in my state) reflected the concern that voters had. There was considerable public pressure to have the republic question seperated from mention of a president because so many voters would vote no to a republic with an appointed head of state but yes if the question was on it's own (with mention of government changes as a separate question). Many believe that the wording was a deliberate ploy by monarchists to defeat the referendum and that the yes vote would have won if we had voted to be a republic and sorted out the government later. Wayne 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Wayne's (and many others) position here is that if you are amending the constitution it has to be a complete change. It was easier for the Americans, for example, as they had got rid of the monarchy before they wrote their constitution. You can't remove the Queen and the Governor-General without providing for a replacement otherwise the functions carried out by them cannot be exercised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plerdsus (talk • contribs) 02:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The referendum itself didn't, and couldn't be expected to specifically detail all the changes in the Constitution that a successful YES would have entailed. The Constitution is not written to obstruct changes that the populace wants. If the framers of the question had made one that implicated change to directly elected president then it is likely the numbers, and possibly the result would have been different, given the exit polls. Mdw0 (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

A referendum, if passed, does in fact alter the text of The Constitution, which is why every voter receives a marked up copy showing how a Yes vote will affect the text. However, only a small fraction of voters make their decision based on the proposed textual amendments, and most rely on the question on the ballot paper to encapsulate the gist of the proposed change. After the event, exit polls showed that "No" voters who did not like the idea of the Queen of England being Australia's Head of State frequently declared that they did not want "a President". Any analysis needs to include the view that, had the question been framed to propose replacement of the Queen with the Governor-General as Head of State, it would have attracted much greater support. I have taken the liberty of including a reference to that view so that there is a record that the issues in contention among supporters of a republic were more subtle than simply a binary choice between direct election or appointment by the Parliament. The analysis section could possibly also benefit from a description of the present arrangement by which the Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pargy (talk • contribs) 12:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed mergers

I feel that these articles should be merged into the same one. Jeffklib 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they should be merged. However, I wonder whether it might be appropriate for this article to usurp the title of Australian referendum, 1999 in order to be in line with the naming standard for referendums in Australia.--cj | talk 05:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, except that the naming standard for referendums in Australia is stupid, as it tells us absolutely nothing about what the referendum was actually about. Rebecca 10:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

I have merged Australian referendum, 1999 (Preamble) and 1999 Australian republic referendum into this article per the discussion above. Some cleanup may be in order now.

This talk page was merged from Talk:1999 Australian republic referendum. Kevin 09:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referendum of November 6th, 1999 in external Australian territories

Please anybody give me a reference on source (on this page) about and Republican referendum on Cocos (Keeling) islands, Christmas island and Norfolk island. --User:212.98.173.133 14:35 28 July 2007.

As I understand it, they are classed as a single electrate under the North Territory (or possibly the Australian Capital Territory).--58.108.249.136 10:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of correct. Christmas and Cocos are part of the NT Division of Lingiari, which includes all of the Northern Territory outside metropolitan Darwin. Norfolk Island is unrepresented in the Federal Parliament and did not vote. According to the 1906-1999 CD, Christmas Island had a 57.22% Yes vote, Cocos Islands 39.85%, and Lord Howe Island 52.06%. Orderinchaos 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tone/style

There appears to be a lot of original research and commentary in this article. Some of it is justified and sourceable, but opinion writing should be left to the bloggers. Orderinchaos 13:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of a talk page

(significant commentary removed)

From WP:TALK, which deals with the rules relating to article talk pages:

[...] The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. [...]
[...] Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. [...]
[...] Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. [...]

I suggest the IP editors trying to start debate about the topic of republicanism take this advice on board. This article, and this talk page, are not about opinions or what various people would or would not like - it is about the proper use of verifiable secondary independent sources which talk about something. If you're looking for a debate on the issue of various models of republicanism, I suggest that a blog or web forum is far better suited to that purpose. Orderinchaos 15:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I actually have nothing to do with the article in its current form whatsoever (it's in my watchlist as part of the Australian politics vandalism patrol), consider this a warning that any further breaches of WP:TALK will be reverted. Orderinchaos 07:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it and blocked the user, after discovering that the individual in question was evading a one-month block for exactly the same behaviour on related articles. Orderinchaos 07:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

This page IS neutral. I was quite surprised to see a neutrality tag on this one. Sure, the referencing should be better, but it is quite obvious BOTH sides of the issue are represented fairly and equally. The facts of the referendum - when it was held, what the votes were is all there, impartial and accurate. If you think its neutrality is questionable, exactly which side do you think it favours? Mdw0 (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I think it was a case of a one-person campaign against the article - tag's now been removed. Orderinchaos 22:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Process

Republicans say they weren't happy with the process. Some monarchists weren't either.

Can we mention the legal action taken by the Australian Monarchist League during the referendum campaign? It concerned the rules for counting the votes.

For example a tick was counted as a Yes vote whilst a cross was counted informal.

121.218.69.100 (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not a certain banned User:Steakknife are you? --Lholden (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchism Sidebar

There is a strange monarchism sidebar which puts the 1999 referendum as the big moment of monarchism since the Iranian Revolution. The sidebar sends a clear political message and does not belong in Wikipedia. --Lawe (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is, the referendum is a big date for monarchism and republicanism. One mans defeat is another mans victory. Either way, it is still relevant for both sides, don't you think? --Cameron* 18:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this article doesn't send a political message? I'm with Cameron: the subject of this article is relevant to both monarchism and republicanism, in Australia and in general. --G2bambino (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article does send a message. The message: This is how not to prepare a Referendum for a republic. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with GoodDay on this one. I've no objection to a sidebar. I don't object that its relevant to Monarchy in Australia. But there are more relevant sidebars that could be placed there: Politics of Australia (It is part of Wikiproject Australia), Political Science, Constitution of Australia. And equally, a Republicanism sidebar could be placed there. Personally, I would prefer no sidebar at all or Australian Constitution. Singling out Monarchism does indeed send a clear message of ideological bias.--Gazzster (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The side bar's gotta go. It gives the impression of gloating over the Referendum's results. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to change it to Constitution of Australia. How does one edit a sidebar? I don't see it in editing mode.--Gazzster (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editing thingy, is at the bottom of the box. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is part of the sidebar template, then it seems logical that the sidebar template go on the article. That doesn't preclude, of course, other sidebars being added. Changes to the template should be discussed at the template's talk page, I imagine. --G2bambino (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to change it, I want to remove it.--Gazzster (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right G2. Before removing it from the sidebar this would have to be discussed there. --Cameron* 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what we're doing?--Gazzster (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's what we're discussing. I sorta fell off track, folks. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't apologise. We all know we're discussing the template. I suggest we either have no sidebar at all, or Constitution of Australia. I may have to invent it. I'll see.--Gazzster (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's a rather elegant sidebar at Constitution of Australia: Politics and government of Australia. Shall we use that one? It's relevant and stylish.--Gazzster (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do I go about doing that? --Gazzster (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know. I thought you knew how. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a bit of digging.--Gazzster (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hear ya. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] If it's just removing it that's being discussed, I'll reiterate: it makes sense that as this article is listed in the sidebar, the sidebar should be in this article. No? --G2bambino (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to the politics of sidebars. Ignored 'em before today. So I suppose I should remove this article from the template. Makes sense. The main article referred to is Republicanism in Australia. With all the internal links to topics about republicanism, the monarchism sidebar was quite incongrous, don't you think?--Gazzster (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Gazzster (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This[[1]] seems to be the appropriate sidebar, especially as it has a link, 'Republican Debate' which fits the content of this article. I tried to insert it, but I don't know how to adjust it to the side. Anyone care to have a go?--Gazzster (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted the Politics_of_Australia_sidebar. I didn't do anything special and it moved to the right hand side. --Lawe (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment on the monarchism sidebar - it's terrible. It is difficult to imagine the sidebar being accepted on any of the historical articles mentioned in the list. Some listed articles do not even mention the word monarchy or monarchism. --Lawe (talk) 06:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lawe. Yes, I noticed that too. I might go over to the template page and attempt a little reconstruction.--Gazzster (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've prompted a discussion at Template:Monarchism if anyone's interested.--Gazzster (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Comment;The idea that the referendum was a clear victory for either Monarchism or republicanism is absurd.The Australian public are not stupid enough to fall for black and white answers to the questions of politics and issues related to our head of government.Australia as a young country from unique origins to any other country has a sceptical and questioning attitude to politics.Claims of victory by the "monarchists" are true but not absolute.ThanksErn Malleyscrub (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of Referendum

Would it be helpful to add detail of the cost of the referendum? Approx. $65 million I believe, but hard to track down verification.Thanks for all constructive input Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Costs of referenda are usually only raised as issues by those who don't want them to be passed. Some Australian referenda have been passed. Should they not have been held because of their cost? If the cost of this referendum is added, the only fair and logical thing to do is to also add the cost of every Australian referendum ever held to their respective articles. Are you going to do that? If not, bias is showing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with the cost being reported - it after all appears in either a special referendum report or the next annual report from the AEC. (I don't know which one as I haven't bothered to check, but it would undoubtedly be on AEC's website.) It should however be noted in a separate section on administration, which would also note other things in those reports eg the remote polling arrangements, any particular or unusual features of the administration etc. Orderinchaos 07:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do see a problem, expressed my concerns, and you have failed to address them. I have just looked at the articles on about ten other Australian referendums (still not sure what that plural should be!) and none of them mentioned the cost. If the cost of referenda is of interest, maybe it should be addressed in the general article on Referendums in Australia, rather than here. Why would you want it only mentioned in connection with this one? HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the articles on referendums in Australia are in any way complete. (I personally think it should be "-enda" but I got outvoted on that one.) Orderinchaos 08:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HiLo48,appreciate the input.The 1967 Aboriginal referendum helped Australias treatment of Aborigines and started a huge amount of long needed reform.The cost of that referendum in money is obviously irrelevant to the benifits gained;humanity is priceless.Maybe a different subject heading in Wikipedia detailing costs of governance in Democracies,Dictatorships,Socialist systems, etc. Complex subject beyond my abilities.Cost and benifit analysis would be subject to ecomnomists & historians debate endless,frantic,heated,maybe fruitless? Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angst

The article tells us that "The outcome was met with angst....." Angst is not an encyclopaedic word. Someone spoke "bitterly" too. Very judgemental. This whole paragraph under "Reactions" is unreferenced. Better to just report what people said and let Wikipedia readers decide for themselves whether it was said bitterly or with angst. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too true. This article's been a problem for a long time. I rewrote one small part of it today. Orderinchaos 07:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice cleanup HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably more to do, I just haven't looked at the rest of the article yet. Also haven't done a search of the academic literature yet. Orderinchaos 08:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need background

This article dearly needs a "background" section, providing an historical introduction to the issue in a couple of paragraphs instead of leaping right into the vote and its results. I have no ability to do it, though.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Did the monarch in fact gave her consent to step from the power if the referendum passed?--Dojarca (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth sees it as Australia's issue to resolve and thinks it's inevitable Australia will one day become a republic but remain a member of the Commonwealth. I can't find the news sources for this but it's been said more than once, I believe.
Having said that, it's not relevant as, under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, which was signed by Queen Victoria, the Queen's power is constitutional. With the removal of the British Parliament's power to override Australian Law (Statute of Westminster 1931, signed 1942 by Australia) and the removal of any form of appeal to the British system against acts of Australian courts or parliaments (Australia Act 1986), the Queen's power is based solely in the Australian Constitution. S.128 means that for this to be changed, a referendum meeting the requirements needs to be introduced by Parliament and passed by the people. Orderinchaos 23:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 things state by state no vote and voter enrolment numbers

there is a record of the number of yes votes and their percentage but the number of no votes state by state and in percentage terms is not list neither is the total number of votes this seems quite strange as all other referendum articles have this data and especially since the referendum was not successfull making it important to show where and in wat amount it was knocked back by.

so does anyone know where to find such numbers

Digmores (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Read further down the article. --Lholden (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no there is only 2 states and no showing of the number of enrolled voters in each state and the no vote in other states, iv found a source and am putting a new table together that shows ALL the infomation.

Digmores (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you meant by "only 2 states". There's an overall turn-out figure but not for each state. --Lholden (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
im trying to get consistancy with other referendum articles in the way the results of the referendum is reported

look at the table for

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_referendum,_1988_%28Parliamentary_Terms%29

this referendum and u will get wat i mean.

Digmores (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explain exactly what you are looking for and I'll provide it. I have the CD with all the result breakdowns sitting in front of me. Orderinchaos 09:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/referendums/1999_Referendum_Reports_Statistics/results_republic.htm

link show info i wanted just need to put into a table so that it is consistant with the other articles regarding australian referendums. This article has a alot of prose and background context but dosent actually say for example how many electors there were in WA and how many voted no and how many voted yes in numical terms i.e. 500,000 voted yes and 600,000 voted no. Digmores (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Digmores (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the info I have is from a single Excel table on the CD, entitled "Referendum: 6 November 1999: Referendum Results by State and Division" (v4_21rsd.xls) Citation is identical to No.2 on the article. I have tried to reproduce the table almost exactly in Wiki format below:

(table removed, see reformat below)

A proposed law for the Alteration of the Constitution, entitled the Constitutional Alteration (Preamble) 1999

National Summary

Yes No Formal Informal Total
State Enrolment Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes %
New South Wales No 4146653 1647378 42.14 2261960 57.86 3909338 99.01 39144 0.99 3948482 95.22
Victoria No 3164843 1268044 42.46 1718331 57.54 2986375 98.99 30341 1.01 3016716 95.32
Queensland No 2228377 686644 32.81 1405841 67.19 2092485 99.23 16174 0.77 2108659 94.63
Western Australia No 1176311 383477 34.73 720542 65.27 1104019 99.06 10436 0.94 1114455 94.74
South Australia No 1027392 371965 38.10 604245 61.90 976210 98.95 10325 1.05 986535 96.02
Tasmania No 327729 111415 35.67 200906 64.33 312321 98.94 3343 1.06 315664 96.32
Australian Capital Territory No 212586 87629 43.61 113293 56.39 200922 99.16 1696 0.84 202618 95.31
Northern Territory No 108149 35011 38.52 55880 61.48 90891 98.90 1015 1.10 91906 84.98
National Total No 12392040 4591563 39.34 7080998 60.66 11672561 99.05 112474 0.95 11785035 95.10

Hope this is of use. Orderinchaos 10:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on rereading, this information appears to already be there in a different form on the site you linked to, so are you simply looking for help in wiki-formatting it or what? Orderinchaos 11:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've pre-emptively assumed that you were simply looking for help in wikiformatting, as I have to go AFK, so here is the first table reformatted per that 1988 one. If you think it's appropriate, feel free to cut and paste into the article. Source can be either the existing No.2, or the web link you supplied, as both contain identical figures.

A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?

Result
State On rolls Ballots issued For Against Informal
% %
New South Wales 4,146,653 3,948,714 1,817,380 46.43% 2,096,562 53.57% 34,772
Victoria 3,164,843 3,016,737 1,489,536 49.84% 1,499,138 50.16% 28,063
Queensland 2,228,377 2,108,694 784,060 37.44% 1,309,992 62.56% 14,642
Western Australia 1,176,311 1,114,326 458,306 41.48% 646,520 58.52% 9,500
South Australia 1,027,392 986,394 425,869 43.57% 551,575 56.43% 8,950
Tasmania 327,729 315,641 126,271 40.37% 186,513 59.63% 2,857
Australian Capital Territory 212,586 202,614 127,211 63.27% 73,850 36.73% 1,553
Northern Territory 108,149 91,880 44,391 48.77% 46,637 51.23% 852
Total for Commonwealth 12,392,040 11,785,000 5,273,024 45.13% 6,410,787 54.87% 101,189
Obtained majority in no State and an overall minority of 1 137 763 votes.
Not carried

exactly wat i was thinking of and it has the same format to the other articles on other referendums. Digmores (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CD figures are also in an appendix to each edition of Tony Blackshield and George Williams, Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (latest, 5th edn 2010). However, since this book is expensive and few will have access to the CD, I've added at the beginning of the article a note to the Parliamentary Handbook, where figures for all Australian referendums/a can be found online. The figures are different: the CD percentages appear to be of all ballots, whereas the Handbook percentages seem to be for votes validly cast; otherwise put, the CD percentages include the informals while the Handbook percentages do not. Could someone with good stats knowledge kindly check this out and suggest a preference? --Wikiain (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preamble

Is anyone aware of any analysis done of why the preamble vote failed? I can remember at the time of the referrendum being very frustrated by the lack of commentry WRT to the reference to 'god' in the preamble. I voted against it on those grounds and would have supported it otherwise. It would be nice to have some analysis of the why it failed but I so far have been unable to find a source. JohnnyDogooder (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article (and this one from a different author in the same publication) are the only one I can find. Orderinchaos 17:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the updated section on the preamble and contribute scholarly comments. Discussion currently also here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#Australian_republic_referendum.2C_1999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkyx (talk • contribs) 07:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't noticed this discussion before. The god bit certainly put me off. Pure Howadism. A very clever, very sneaky politician. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little evidence that the new paragraph is related to the referendum, and that mostly constitutes original research or synthesis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute information and verify relevant to the subject raised in the last paragraph of the Preamble Question section. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The reason the new preable was proposed for the Australian Constitution is twofold. Contrary to popular belief, the Australian Constitution (Act) HAS NO PREAMBLE. What we call the preamble is actually the "preamble to the Act" and not part of the act itself. Therefore it has no legal standing. The new preamble was introduced by Howard (a staunch Monarchist) as a way to increase the No vote. The Republican movement was primarily minimalist, had opposed adding a preamble since 1991 and had specifically rejected a preamble at their convention in 1998 where it was actually noted that including a preamble would cause the referendum to fail. The preamble was written entirely by John Howard (with proofreading by Les Murray) in 1999 and ignored the recomendations of the 1998 Constitutional Convention and included provisions that did not receive consensus. The wording was kept secret from the public, was presented to parliament two weeks before the referendum and was passed without amendments the next day. The inclusion of mention of God was another reason the preamble failed. A mention of God was not included in the draft of the 1900 preamble but was added after the government received a petition signed by 35,000 people to include it. The majority of discusions in the 10 years before the referendum rejected inclusion of God in any new preamble. Another problem is that Howards preamble did not include an enactment clause. An enactment clause was the only unanimous resolution passed by the Constitutional Convention. There have been academic papers written regarding this information so they should be around somewhere. Wayne (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The divisions among the electorate

This section is totally uncited, and appears to be in violation of WP:OR. --LJ Holden 21:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's more than likely correct (from an Australian POV), but I agree it needs to be cited. A number of books (Barns 2006, Kirby 2001 etc) have been written about the referendum. If I had time, and more interest in the topic, I'd look them up. Orderinchaos 23:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it actually was part of someone's analysis of the referendum. I've been looking for the original text for sometime, but not found anything. I've only raised it now. --LJ Holden 03:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Background

Ok, so following on from a discussion on the alternative methods of selecting a president, can I suggest that in actual fact this section should be renamed "Background" on the referendum, with reference to the statute that established it from the 1998 constitutional convention; and the alternatives discussed therein. --LJ Holden 02:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Kirby and NPOV

To explain why I have removed, in relation to Justice Kirby, the words "and leading figure in progressive Australian jurisprudence". My first reason was that I do not think this statement is NPOV. While it is true that, at the time, Kirby was described as a "progressive" in his judgments, this was in contrast with "originalism" (Americans may recognise this as "dead hand and living tree"). But it no longer makes much sense: the High Court seem to have moved on from "originalism versus progressivism" (although it is unclear to where); and in some of his later judgements (e.g. WorkChoices) Kirby interpreted the Constitution conservatively (I mean interpretation, not politics). So far as "progressive" might refer to Kirby's extra-judicial statements, especially about gay rights, I think that it wouldn't really be relevant here. Secondly, it was inaccurate to characterise Kirby as a leader in "jurisprudence", with a link to the article "Jurisprudence" where the topic is defined as "the theory and philosophy of law", with a redirect to "jurisprudence" meaning "case law". --Wikiain (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Results

Under Results, the first section concerning monarchy or republic, it says "Obtained majority in no State and an overall minority of 1 137 763 votes. Not carried." However, there seems to be a majority in "Australian Capital Territory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.157.36 (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is appropriate. Constitution section 128 requires (1) a majority in a majority of the states and (2) a majority overall. Voters in the territories count only toward the overall total. (Please sign your contributions. I've removed your line spaces to shorten the section.) --Wikiain (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preamble Question - re phrase "We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution"

Please contribute relevant information to the new paragraph at the end of the Preamble Question section. Some verification is required and additional references or facts would be helpful. Monkyx (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth

If this had passed was Australia to remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations? Theofficeprankster (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the Commonwealth of Nations was never envisaged. The Commonwealth of Nations currently has 54 member states and most of them are republics - Elizabeth is head of state in only 16 of them. --Wikiain (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although it was obvious at the time that a notable proportion of the No campaigners either believed themselves in ignorance or tried to deceive others into believing that becoming a republic would lead to Australia leaving the Commonwealth. HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the NO campaign made it part of their scaremongering - but it was never part of the proposal. --Wikiain (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. Why would Australia remove itself from the Commonwealth Games where we win so many medals? HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the NO case documents, there was no mention of Australia leaving the Commonwealth. I can't recall anybody putting this seriously at the time. This seems to be some myth being created after the fact, perhaps by those who were unable to understand why their side was rejected by the people. --Pete (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikian didn't say it was in the official documents. It was tangential scaremongering. Just like suggestions that the flag would automatically change too. I was on the road for work a lot in those days, and heard far too much shock-jock talk-back radio. These issues were definitely on the unofficial table. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You said it was part of the NO campaign. It wasn't. It may have been discussed by random people - there was all sorts of ignorant rubbish being promoted by sorts of people pushing all sorts of positions - but not any member of the NO campaign. I hope nobody is planning to insert unsourced material into the article? --Pete (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was part of the NO campaign. HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good-oh! It wasn't part of any official campaign on either side at the time. Random noise from random people. Talk-show callers and such. We're on the same page. --Pete (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it would have all been random. Clever politicians (and Howard was one of the cleverer ones) know exactly how to plant rumours and misinformation if it suits their cause. That's politics. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Isn't that precisely what you have just done? Let's stick to things we can reliably source, please. --Pete (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you think it was random. I suspect it may not have been. Neither of us has sources to prove our point, so it won't go in the article. (Although something from a quality commentary could.) Neither of us started this discussion. We both expressed opinions. Different ones. That's OK. HiLo48 (talk)

Title

All our other articles on Aussie referenda have the format Australian referendum, <year> and if there were more than one on the same day there's a topic in brackets, but otherwise the topic is not specified in the title.

Is there any reason this one is different? -- Jack of Oz [pleasant conversation] 23:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this information to be added?

Should the article include information based on the following, pasted from Jack Upland's comments at Talk:Australian head of state dispute:

  • "... in the course of the referendum campaign the monarchist Michael Kirby commented: "... A similar distraction, in my view, was the argument that the Governor-General was actually the Head of State of Australia" ("The Australian Referendum on a Republic - Ten Lessons" - cited in Blackshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law and Theory, p 1351) 02:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "... in the lead-up to 1999 referendum...The republicans made much of the issue of an Australian being able to be head of state, including the infamous "Give an Australian the head job". David Smith and some other monarchists countered with the line that the GG was the head of state. This ... was a central issue of the campaign. The republicans appeal to nationalism was derailed, in part, by this "distraction" (to quote the monarchist Kirby) that some monarchists raised. 00:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "...Kirby summed it up well.... The republicans were divided about the model, and the monarchists brought up a number of "false issues", including this "distraction". Clearly, if there was a pre-existing intellectual dispute, the republicans were unaware of it. ... the republican campaign from Keating onwards took it for granted the Queen was head of state. Turnbull also in The Reluctant Republic put the same argument. Smith and Flint then counteracted. According to Kirby, Howard eventually admitted the Queen was head of state. I would say that this could be dealt with in a paragraph on the referendum page (which seems rather undeveloped). .18:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC).

Qexigator (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian republic referendum, 1999. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Mack's death

I think only Phil Cleary is left out of the main direct electionist leaders from 1999? the others (Mack, Clem Jones etc.) are now dead. Turnbull says in his book about the referendum that Clem and the others wouldn't live to see a republic if the referendum failed. A Cassandra, that Malcolm. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"a republican strategy of using big "names" attached to the Whitlam era to promote their cause"

Be pretty hard to pitch to that Baby Boomer nostalgia in any vote today as the Whitlam ministry is almost all dead now. Relying on protest-era nostalgia was a stupid move when they had no votes to throw away. Oh, well... Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Map mistake

Closer look at map of electorates, even if technically not important (referendum doesn't care how many electorates gets carried) is wrong in some ways


Map appears to be copied over from a 2007? federal election map, which presents issues

- Electorate of Farrer in NSW is shaped like a funny L on the south western corner of NSW, it was not shaped like that before

- WA is given 15 (?) electorates, but was only allocated 14 in 1998 (they had 15 by 2001).

This is bizarre as an AEC site with results by electorate https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/referendums/1999_Referendum_Reports_Statistics/summary_republic.htm only has 14 divisions for WA, so how'd the results for this 15th electorate come about

- Likewise SA is only given 11, they were entitled to 12


Trouble is that closest federal election map to referendum, 2001, was done after redistribution that shuffled numbers around. Based on https://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/Redistributions/dates.htm, between 1999 referendum (earliest election before was 1998), and the 2001 election, 4(?) states had redistributions, which included WA getting an extra sheet.


Does anyone know where any online maps are? Would a copy have to be obtained via a library? iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 02:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:1999_Australian_republic_referendum"