Here is what the questions at the referendum said. there were 2 questions posed at the referendum:
REPUBLIC QUESTION:
The questions of being a republic put to electors was whether they approved of:
"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."
PREAMBLE QUESTION:
Electors were also asked to vote on a second question at the 1999 referendum which asked whether they approved of:
"A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.
The preamble would then have read
With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good.
We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:
proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;
never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;
upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;
honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;
recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;
mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;
supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;
and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success. "
RESULTS
In order to pass, each question required a majority 'Yes' vote, as well as a majority of states (four or more) to have a majority 'Yes' vote. Voters in the territories only count towards the national vote. In practice, the requirement is to carry four states, as there has never been a referendum which carried four states and failed to pass, whereas there have been several that gained an overall majority but failed to carry four states. On this basis, the margin of failure can validly be regarded as the margin in the fourth state, and so the effective referendum yes vote was only 41.48%
Text
<blockquote>Quote<br><hr>Not sure why the NT voted down becoming a state. It would have had extraordinary powers given its senators would have increased from 2 to 12, almost 1 senator per 10,000 people.<hr></blockquote>I knew the political staffers running the CLP Government's YES campaign quite well. The Saturday before - at a dinner party of 12 people, some long-termers, others relatively recent arrivals - not one (including myself) was going to vote YES. I told the CLP spinners they were in all likelihood stuffed, but they laughed at me. It failed for two main reasons (1) the Indigenous population (and their supporters) voted overwhelmingly against it, mainly because they feared patriation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, and rightly so, and (2) everyone (including some CLPers) hated Shane Stone - the smarmy little Napoleonic prick of a Chief Minister at the time - so we couldn't abide his being Premier (who also appointed himself QC, with barely any courtroom experience). So it was quite personal really to vote NO.<BR><BR>On the issue of 12 Senators versus two - it's not necessarily the case. It seems the Commonwealth Parliament may have powers to admit states on whatever conditions it determines, and the requirement of 12/state may apply only to the founding states, not newly created ones. This (and many related issues for a new state) have never been tested in the High Court of course.
Charlie@#18: It was the "direct election" group that was urging a no vote. The model put forward by the Aus Republican Movement was I believe based on the Irish model - 2/3 parliament. I'm in full agreement with you that direct election leads to, well, the US model, and we all know how that's worked out... Anyway, it wasn't the government of the day but Howard that scuppered it - he is probably the staunchest monarchist in the country, although that didn't stop him from taking the Queen's rightful place (as head of state) in opening the Olympics. Interestingly, Malcolm Turnbull was (IIRC) leader of the ARM at the time, and Peter Costello is well known as a republican.
yes, I know that the US Presidential election isn't strictly direct election...
#35, ref para4 "#31" - Cameroon consists of former French and British colonies (they got it from the Germans in after WW1) united in 1961, and still has a native anglophone minority hence its application to join
Good this, isn't it?
As was said, to get a decent republic model, a second referendum would have been required whether the result to the first referedum with the politicians republic was Yes or No. better to vote No and remind the screwed up politicians that it should be the people who decide the president, not the pollies.
The system that determines who wins elections in this country is somewhat dodgy to begin with. Beasley got 52% in 98 and lost. Hanson got 10% in 98 and got a whopping zero house seats and one senate seat. IMHO if a party gets 10% of the votes they should get 10% of the seats. In 2004 the Greens in Victoria got 243580 primary votes, and Family First got only 53032 primary votes, so which party won the sixth senate seat? Oh, of course, Family First got it. Leaving that unrepresentative swill in charge of who elects the president would be insane.
Why? They're already in charge of who becomes PM.
Direct election is OK if you want a political president a la France and USA, but I wouldn't mind one appointed by elected representatives if it was to be more a ceremonial post.
<blockquote>Quote<br><hr>it should be the people who decide the president, not the pollies.<hr></blockquote>As Nerb and many others have said, a directly elected President would have tabs on themselves, and would seek to attain powers and influence that would conflict with the Parliament. Australians are a sceptical even cynical lot - we do not want too much power vested into one office, and the checks and balances of the Westminster system are much superior to the US and other places where they elect a dictator who is in conflict with the people's elected houses. Look at East Timor for a model that has gone bad already.<BR><BR>Proportional representation sounds good in theory, but (a) you have to have multi-member electorates, and that has serious problems - having a single member is much better in terms of each region having a "voice" - New Zealand has a messy hybrid system, and it is not particularly successful, and (b) it leads to fractious parliaments with unwieldy and often devious coalitions so some mishmash of parties can actually form a working government.<BR><BR>Our system of preferential voting is far better than first-past-the-post lunacy seem in the USA and UK. Here you have to have at least enough support not to be voted last (or second last, third last, etc) - it is logical, "fair" and understood by the electorate. Percentage anomalies will always occur because of different voting patterns across electorates - Beasley had to win a majority of seats - not the popular vote. I grant you the Senate (and state upper houses) have a very complicated quota system because of the multi-member electorates, but the principle is the same - the person or party that people don't want the least will ultimately win through.<BR><BR>And the President should be purely ceremonial in a true democracy - with less powers than the current Queen / GG hold.
THink of the well known "hawks" dragging the US into invading Iraq - Rumsfeld, Wolfowitcz etc - unelected appointees by a powerful president. A case of "more" democracy equalling less.
Does anyone remember "The Rise & Rise of Michael Rimmer"? Peter Cook as a cynical polly having referenda on everything
trusted partner
