I don’t know what happened in Australia, but with all due respect, we aren’t Australia, and our constitutional setup is very different. The 1982 Constitution Act pretty much writes the monarchy out of decision making.
This has evolved into a spirited debate, so I’ll just move this to Great Debates.
bibliophage
moderator, GQ
Text of the Constitution Act, 1982
There are several instances where it looks like various changes become valid law only by a proclamation of the Governor General (when authorized by resolutions of both houses of the legislature). This brings up the question of what would happen if the Governor General refused to issue such a proclamation.
The GG derives all her powers from the constitution, since 1982. Prior to that there might have been some interesting cross-Atlantic politicking going on, but since '82, the GG is entirely part of the Canadian government. If the GG refused to sign something, it would go the Canadian courts, not the queen.
So? Nobody is arguing she has absolute authority. There mere fact that if the queen/GG would be able to disrupt the system in this manner is proof that the monarchy still exercises some influence over Canadian politics. And anyway, if the issue did go to court, it seems to me it would be a pretty open-and-shut case. “Look here, the law says that you need the GG’s signature on this law for it to be passed,” the judge would say, “and you have failed to obtain that signature. Therefore the law cannot be passed.” I very much doubt that there is any provision in the Constitution Act which would force the GG to sign in a law.
Now, if the GG really is appointed by the prime minister and not by the queen, as RickJay claims, it seems a much easier way of dealing with the situation would be to dismiss the recalcitrant GG and install a new one.
To respond to the original question, I believe the crown separates us from Americans. A great many of our country’s founders were descended from the United Empire Loyalists who fled the fanaticism and bloodshed of revolutionary fervour among English subjects along the Atlantic seaboard in the eighteenth century.
Today Canadians take pride that our country was born without violence. Canadians recognize the economic neccessity of close ties with Americans and do generally regard the USA as a friend, but look to a discriminating health care system and gun culture to be avoided.
By disengaging from the Crown, Canadians would embark on the slippery slope of assimulating into American culture and annexation, having one less major emblem to hold up to remind us that we are different with a different history.
On a separate note, Many of the first nations in Canada have treaties with the crown. I’m not sure, but I don’t believe the crown can be that easily dismissed with regard to these people. I could be wrong on this point. Anyone?
It’s good to see that Yanks aren’t the only ones who can look at their history through rose-colored glasses.
1763 - Canada ripped from the clutches of the nasty French in a bloodless war.
1776 - 1783 - Canada gets fresh wave of immigrants from the colonies to the south–including the peace-loving people who seemed to have been standing around innocently when several hundred pro-independence settlers of the Wyoming Valley, devoted to “fanatacism and bloodshed” shut themselves in their houses and burned themselves to death or hurled themselves onto the knives and hatchets of the unsuspecting Loyalists.
1791 - At the demand of the same peaceful settlers who had fled the “fanatacism and bloodshed” from the south, Britain granted Upper and Lower Canada each a Constitution remarkably similar to the form of government which, if offered to the 13 Southern colonies in 1773, would quite likely have severely reduced the support for independence that grew over the following two years.
It’s nice to be able to claim that one’s country is “born without violence” if one’s country is granted by request the same freedoms that had to be taken by force by an earlier group.
(We’ll also bypass the small actions that led the Metís to exchange their independence movement for a small offering of lead.)
tomndeb, I don’t know if I’m responding to Tom or Deb, but I find your characterization of my view of Canadian history misleading and arrogantly offensive without merit.
If you want to imply that I am ignoring history of violence in Canada, then you should have gone all the way back to the ethnic cleansing of the beotuks, and many other first nations. failure to include them would suggest a latent racism would it not? Well you can take my last comment as seriously as I take the implication of your post that I am looking through history with rose coloured glasses.
Had you read with comprehension, you will note that I referred to the birth of a nation, not the gestation period.
Americans are proud of their revolution, and in my opinion they should be. Canadians are proud of the civilized way we achieved our independance and well we should be.
I found the comments about “fanatacism and bloodshed” and “without violence” ironic in considering actual history–particularly when deliberately juxtaposed against the history of the U.S. I have no quarrel with Canada or Canadians, but if you’re going to drop inflammatory phrases into your text, you need to be able to support them or take the heat.
Canada has a far less bloody history than the U.S. It can be justifiably proud of that. However, its lower level of (not absence of) violence is, in many ways, due to its overall smaller population and the fact that both its inhabitants and the government of Britain were able to learn from lessons gained sometimes through participation in the U.S. experience and sometimes through observation of the U.S. experience. To deliberately contrast the Canadian experience to that of the U.S. in the way that you did simply called up some corrective comments.
There you have it.
The Governer-General has been appointed by the Prime Minister pretty much since 1867; they are invariably one of two things:
-
Ex-politicians who were a part of the Prime Minister’s party, like Ray Hnatyshyn
-
Friends of the Prime Minister, like the current G-G, Adrienne Clarkson, who is surely the dumbest head of state of any Western country, and I’m including Dubya.
I honestly don’t know the last Governor-General who wasn’t an appointee of the Prime Minister. Certainly hasn’t happened in our lifetimes.
The principal utility of the Queen as head of state is the following:
- provide an interesting name for court cases
- give us someone to name hospitals after
- look distinguished on our money
- make news anchors piss me off by repeatedly referring to the “34 heads of state” at the FTAA meetings in Quebec.
Actually, I know exactly when the monarchy will be abandoned in Canada: when the Queen dies and we have to put Prince Charles on our money and stamps. However, if Prince Charles dies first and Prince William becomes the heir apparent, the monarchy will last for the duration of his reign so that all the straight girls and gay guys can get off over the money.
tomndeb My comments re violence/fanaticism/bloodshed were in context of our countries’ relationship with the British crown in regard to our achieving sovereignty from the crown. A general review of our interactive history is not germaine to the point that I was making with respect to the monarchy as a historical basis for what separates Canada from America , of which we are reminded every time we pull out some cash. I suggest you are merely reacting to the old worn out impression that Canadians think they are better than Americans. I do not take resposibility for your sensitivity.
I do not disagree
I suggest your comments may be ancillary, but certainly not corrective. Nothing I said is untrue.
I’m sorry, then, that this debate has continued over a point that should have been made clear much earlier: the GG is appointed by the Prime Minister. Prior to 1982, it was done with the consent (formality or not) of the Queen; since, it is the PM’s sole discretion. That’s what closes the loop, and makes our government an all-Canadian affair.
tomndebb wrote:
I thought it was because the climate was just too damn cold up there in the Great White North for anyone to want to go outdoors and have a war.
Correction, The Royal Guard not the Beefeaters who guard the Tower of London.
In discussions regarding the governor general, or the lieutenant-governor of each province,it may be useful to point out these appointments unlike the senate are for a limited term of 5 years.
What is the deal with Canada and the Queen? It’s all tied up in Canada’s political history, its Constitution, and it’s Governor General.
Canada’s most recent Constitutional Amendment was made to build some non-religious schools in Newfoundland, and Canada’s second most recent Constitutional Amendment was to made to build a bridge to Prince Edward Island. Let’s just say that our Constitution is interesting and unique, and is by no means fixed in stone.
Not only do we have a stack of Constitutional Amendments, but we have a whole trunk full of Constitutional Documents which either may or may not have the force of law (depending on whether or not they were made before 1867, or if pre-Confederation, whether they were included by reference), going right the way back to 1670, when a company was given the right to make and enforce laws across much of what is Canada today.
We even have many traditional ways of doing things that are not written down anywhere in any laws. For example, by unwritten convention we have a Prime Minister whose office was only relatively recently was mentioned in a Constitutional Document (in 1982), and even then was only mentioned in passing without speaking of what the office is, what it does, and where it finds its authority.
In short, our Constitution is not just one document, and is not just a set of documents, but rather is it a combination of written documents and unwritten conventions. We have not yet even agreed upon an amending formula, and Quebec has not signed on for the Constitution by all of Canada is governed. Our Constitution has been developing for hundreds of years, but still is in its infancy.
To keep it as simple as possible, let’s start with the assumption that for whatever reason, Canada has always had a ruling Monarch who did not live here, so the ruling had to be done through an assistant in Canada called a Governor General, and in the provinces (the states within Canada) through Lieutenants Governor. These offices were simply extensions of the pre-Confederation tradition of using Governors in the colonies. The question then is just what these Governors General are authorized to do. To answer this, we have to look at who has the power to make laws.
The British Parliament used to have power to make laws over Canada, and the British Courts and the British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council used to have the power to interpret laws in Canada. Through a gradual process lasting well over a hundred years, Canada slowly took over all these powers. There was no single event that gave us independence.
Our fist big step, oddly enough, was the incorporation of a company in England back in 1670, in which the King gave the corporation the power to make and enforce laws in what is now much of Canada. The company was named “The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England tradeing into Hudsons Bay”, and is now known as the Hudson’s Bay Company. The territory was known as Prince Rupert’s Land, because the company was owned by the King’s brother and his buddies. The territory consisted of the Hudson’s Bay watershed (much of northern Ontario and north-western Quebec, and a tad of Minnesota). At the time, the Maritimes and the St. Lawrence were held by France. (Or to be truthful, all of Canada was held by numerous First Nation’s, France had a few villages, and England had nothing.) The document (which no longer holds Constitutional authority) was the Royal Proclamation (Proc., Charles II, Eng., 1670).
The next big step was a period of colonization, primarily in the Maritimes, and then up through Upper and Lower Canada (today’s Ontario and Quebec). That took a couple of hundred years of fighting and trading with France. Along the way, the colonies each developed greater or lesser degrees of legislative and judicial self-determination. The Maritimes developed representative government early on through legislative assemblies: Nova Scotia in 1758, Prince Edward Island in 1773, and in New Brunswick in 1786. Quebec obtained representative government later in 1791, for it’s political development had been hampered by the *Quebec Act *(G.B., 1774) after Great Britain won Quebec from France in the Seven Years War.
The impetus to bring representative government to Quebec was due to American refugees, who flooded across the border in and about 1783. Many were placed in the western wilderness of Nova Scotia, which was severed to form New Brunswick, and many were placed in the western wilderness of Quebec (in what is now southern Ontario). To tidy things up, Great Britain’s Constitution Act (G.B., 1791) split Quebec into Upper Canada (now Ontario) and Lower Canada (now Quebec), granting representative government to both.
Even with representative government (elections), there were problems with Governors and their councils not doing what the elected representatives asked them to do, and further problems with the limits on who could vote (landowners rather than landless). Representative government was not necessarily responsible government, for the Governors were not responsible to the elected representatives. After the defeating the Americans in 1813, there was a booming economy and significant expansion into the wilderness through Crown land grants. Those who held the colonial Governors’ ears obtained land grants, and became ever more rich and powerful.
This led to struggles for responsible government in the early and mid-19th century. In Lower Canada, Louis Joseph Papineau led a revolt against le Chateau Compact in 1837, and shortly thereafter in Upper Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie led a revolt against the Family Compact. The first colony to win responsible government was Nova Scotia in 1848, through the efforts of Joseph Howe, a poet, newspaper man, dueller, and politician, who took a more peaceful approach.
Responsible government meant that the Governors now had to be responsible to the elected representatives. The elected representatives now had the right to not only to be listened to by the Governors, but also to demand that the Governors put in place the laws they had passed.
The next big step was the Confederation of some of the colonies into the Dominion of Canada in 1867 through the United Kingdom’s British North America Act (U.K., 1867) (but now called the Constitution Act (U.K., 1867) following its recent incorporation by reference into Canada’s Constitution Act (Can., 1982) from the United Kingdom’s Canada Act (U.K., 1982) – simple, huh? Don’t worry, well come back to it later).
This document (the British North America Act (U.K., 1867), now the Constitution Act (U.K., 1867) as part of the Constitution Act (Can., 1982)), is arguably Canada’s most important Constitutional Document, for it defined which powers the federal government holds and which powers the provinces hold. It set out that we should have a British style Parliament (thus no one bothered to actually specify a Prime Minister, simply because it was implied). It set out the role of the Governor General (and provincial Lieutenants General), who pretty much carried on as the colonial governors had done after responsible government had been variously instituted. The long and short of it is that through this act, the Monarch was confirmed as being the head of Canada’s government (s.9), was represented in Canada by the Governor General (s.10), was head of our Armed Forces (s.15), and most importantly, was responsible to the Canadian Parliament (s.12): “All Powers, Authorities, and Functions . . . shall, as far as the same continue in existence and capable of being exercised . . . be vested in and exerciseable [sic] by the Governor General . . . subject nevertheless . . . to be established or altered by the Parliament of Canada.” Since then, the role and powers of the Monarch have not changed that much.
You’re probably wondering why I inserted so many ellipses in the citation of s.12 of the British North America Act (U.K., 1867). That’s because despite having its own Constitution, Canada still was subject to laws which had been made in the United Kingdom, and which were yet to be made by the United Kingdom. In other words, although we had responsible government for all intents and purposes, the United Kingdom could still make laws which we would have to follow if they wanted us to. Our protection against the Crown was really just a reflection of the protections in the United Kingdom’s own Constitutional democracy, which by then had pulled the teeth of the Monarchy.
Over the next century, the United Kingdom gradually lost the authority to make laws binding on Canada. Their Statute of Westminster (U.K., 1931) removed the legislative authority of the United Kingdom Parliament over the Dominion of Canada (as well as the Dominions of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland, with the exception that the United Kingdom retained the power to amend our Canadian Constitution’s amending formula. Then, as now, Canada was not able to agree internally on an amending formula, so that issue was left alone for another time.) Specifically, the Statute of Westminster (U.K., 1931) tossed out the Colonial Laws Validity Act (U.K., 1865); permitted Canada to make laws that might be repugnant to the United Kingdom; greeted Dame Opal; permitted the Canada to repeal Canadian jurisdiction for United Kingdom laws repugnant to Canada; permitted Canada to make its own treaties; and prohibited the United Kingdom from making any more laws with jurisdiction in Canada unless Canada specifically agreed.
Note that the Statute of Westminster (U.K., 1931) would have been meaningless unless the Governor General was entirely responsible to the Canadian Parliament. Without such Constitutionally enshrined responsibility (both through the British North America Act (U.K., 1867), and through the Constitutional Conventions developed in Colonial times and continued since then) it would have been possible for the Governor General to bring in British law against the wishes of Canada’s Parliament. Fortunately, responsible government through the Constitutional Conventions and the British North America Act (U.K., 1867) were well established by the time of the Statute of Westminster (U.K., 1931), so there was no question of the Governor General having any power at all to go against the Parliament of Canada.
It still took some time to become clear of British laws and the British legal system. In general, the old British laws still applied until they were either specifically revoked, or became outdated as new Canadian laws took their place. Amendments to the British North America Act (U.K., 1867) had to be made for us in the United Kingdom at our request for housekeeping matters and also to let us bring in more of the colonies and territories into Canada. This was because we had not taken care of the amending formula back in 1931. There was never any question of the United Kingdom not passing anything we requested pertaining solely to Canada, so it is debatable if by Constitutional convention they had the power to refuse us. Fortunately, the issue was never raised.
Even then, we were not totally free of the United Kingdom. Although we had the power to establish a Canadian Court of Appeal through the Constitution Act (U.K., 1867), and did just that a few years later in creating the Supreme Court of Canada (Supreme Court Act (Can., 1875)). Even then, however, our Supreme Court of Canada decisions could still be appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the United Kingdom. This foreign Judicial Committee’s superior appellate jurisdiction over Canada for criminal appeals ended in 1933, but due to the depression and the war getting in the way, its jurisdiction over our civil appeals did not end until 1949.
Just to tidy up things like this, in 1947 the King executed “Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada” (Proc., George VI, Can., 1947). We’ve always had Governors or Governors General, so there is nothing special about the date, and the document was not definitive, for it was made by Royal Prerogative within a Constitutional context, but more than any other document, it set out how the Monarch does business in Canada. It pretty much reflected the British North America Act (U.K., 1867), and the similar Letters Patent (*Proc.*George V, Can., 1931) made in anticipation of the Statute of Westminister (U.K., 1931). Notably, it specified that the powers were limited to powers authorized by Canada: *“And We do hereby authorize and empower Our Governor General, with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada or of any members thereof or individually, as the case requires, to exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us in respect of Canada, and for greater certainty but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing to do and execute, in the manner aforesaid, all things that may belong to his office and to the trust We have reposed in him according to the several powers and authorities granted or appointed him by virtue of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1940 and the powers and authorities hereinafter conferred in these Letters Patent and in such Commission as may be issued to him under Our Great Seal of Canada and under such laws as are or may hereinafter be in force in Canada.”
In other words, the Monarch rules in Canada through the Governor General, and the Governor General is bound by the Constitution of Canada. Note that there are no ellipses in this cite this time, for by 1947 Canada was well past the Statute of Westminster (U.K., 1931). What is amusing and important about this document is that it specified that the Governor General can not quit or leave without the permission of the Canadian Prime Minister, and that the execution of the Letters Patent was performed at the command of the King by the Prime Minister of Canada, despite the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada never once having been mentioned in any Constitutional Document up to that time, thus reminding us that in addition to written Constitutional Documents, we are have unwritten Constitutional Conventions of tremendous importance.
What is also important about Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada (Proc., Geo.VI, 1947) is that it confirms that the Governor General appoints judges (obviously within the Constitutional context of having been chosen by the Canadian government). This helps reinforce that the judiciary is bound not only by the laws of the day, but also by the common law, which has tremendous depth and stability. A discussion of the differences between provincial courts (which are pretty much statute driven) and superior courts (which can make full use of common law, equity, and whatever else can be pulled out of the corners of the world’s judicial systems) can wait for another time, but for now just go by my word that having the powerful judges appointed through the Governor General at the direction of the government gives them broader power and greater independence than if the Crown was not part of the equation.
Finally, what is important about the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada (Proc., Geo.VI, 1947) is that it sets out a chain of command in case the Governor General is unable to continue (remember that the Governor General represents the Crown as Head of State and as Head of the Armed Forces). The next person in line is not some other appointee by either the Crown or the Government. That would be too risky, for what if either the Queen or the Prime Minister wanted to make a power grab? To provide some stability, the temporary replacement is to be the most senior member of the Supreme Court of Canada. If anyone makes an unconstitutional power grab and in the process eliminates the Governor General, then the top Judge steps in. Since Supreme Court Judges are very secure in their tenure, it is unlikely that they would have been removed prior to such a crisis.
In 1982, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Eliot Trudeau made the most recent big step forward with our Constitution. He put an end to this business of Canada going to the United Kingdom to have it make amendments to our Constitution. He arranged for the Canada Act (U.K., 1982) to be passed in the United Kingdom, and the Constitution Act (Can., 1982) to the passed in Canada. It took some fancy and confusing writing (thus this business of schedules within schedules of acts within acts), but the net result was that the British North America Act (U.K., 1867), as amended, became the Constitution Act (U.K., 1867), as amended, and was rolled into the Constitution Act (Can., 1982), by way of the Canada Act (U.K., 1982), along with a new Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Part I, Schedule B to the Canada Act (U.K., 1982) as incorporated in the Constitution Act (Can. 1982)). There, I promised we’d get through that, and now we have. And yup, the official name of our hugely important Charter of Rights and Freedoms is “Schedule B” to some other country’s law. Sort of Canadian, don’t you think?
At last, for better or worse, Canada had cut the umbilical from the United Kingdom Parliament. From this point in 1982 on, the only tie to the old world is that the Queen of Canada happens to live in a foreign country, rather than in Canada. That foreign country has no legislative, executive or judicial involvement or power concerning us, and has no potential for such power. When the Queen got on the plane to fly back to the United Kingdom after irrevocably proclaiming (Proc., Eliz. II, Apr. 17, 1982) our Constitution as a fully independent nation, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau pirouetted on the Tarmac.
It makes no difference whether the Queen of Canada lives in a Castle in England with the Royal Family, or in a mansion in Ottawa with her Governor General, or in isolation in a tent at the abandoned York Factory on Hudson’s Bay where the Royal Charter was first proclaimed in Canada over three hundred years ago (Proc., Charles II, Eng., 1670). The Queen of Canada is now entirely a Canadian creature, with only powers as permitted by the Canadian Constitution, and with limitations of the Canadian Constitution.
Is this a good or a bad thing? That remains for another discussion. Some find the thought of a hereditary non-resident monarch to be offensive by its very nature. Some simply find the Royals off-putting by their personal habits. Others prefer the stability that such a Constitution affords by way of providing a brake on unconstitutional acquisitions of power by governments, and by providing a stable framework and procedure during times of governmental transition or Constitutional crisis. Either way, the Crown is now a Canadian Crown, fully under Canadian Constitutional control, to be modified as we please.
Cheers,
Richard “Muffin” Culpeper
The short answer is: it p***** off the Quebec seperatists.
No that was the Excuse the Invading American Armies used each time they lost on our soil.
I think in any discussion of the role of the Queen in Canadian constitutoinal law, the starting point should always be the distinction between her legal powers under the written Constitution, and the unwritten constitutional conventions which limit those powers.
Contrary to some of the assertions made by previous posters, HM has extensive legal powers under the Canadian Constitution. However, the constitutional conventions of responsible government mean that in almost every case, she (and her representatives, the Governor General and the Lt. Govs) will only exercise those powers on the advice of the leader of the government of the day, who is normally chosen by a combination of the vote in the general elections and the subsequent party alignments in the Commons (federal) and Legislative Assembly (provincial). Also, with a few exceptions, the GG/Lt.Govs exercise all of HM’s powers on her behalf nowadays.
There are, however, a few areas, called the reserve powers, where the GG/Lt. Gov. is not bound by the advice of the PM. The two most commonly referred to are the choice of the PM and the power to dismiss the PM. In pure theory, when a PM resigns or dies in office, the GovGen can exercise the reserve power of appointing a new PM. However, in almost every case, this power of “choice” is actually completely restricted by the political situation.
If a party has a majority in the Commons, the GovGen picks that person as PM. If the majority party hasn’t picked a new leader yet (e.g. - if the PM keeled over suddenly at the Queen’s garden party, which happened to PM Thomson), then the GovGen would normally consult with the senior leadership of that party as to an appropriate caretaker PM pending the leadership race.
Things might get a bit tricky if there is a Commons with several parties and no clear majority, but in that case the Gov Gen would normally just wait for the Commons to decide for itself which party has its confidence, then name the leader of that party as the PM.
There is also, in theory, the reserve power of dismissal. I say in theory because the power has never been used at the federal level in Canada, and only rarely at the provincial level (it’s been over a century since a Lt. Gov. dismissed a government, and all of the precedents involved very unstable party arrangments in the provincial Legislaitve Assembly.) It’s very difficult for me to imagine a case in which this power would be used today in Canada.
Finally, getting back to the question of why the Queen continues as the Canadian head of state, there are the factors that tomndebb pointed out. I would just add two other points.
First, under the *Constitution Act, 1982,*the offices of the Queen, the GovGen and the LtGovs can only be amended by unanimous consent of the federal Commons and Senate, and all ten provincial Legislative Assemblies. This provision was meant to guarantee that Canada would continue under the parliamentary system, rather than switching to a congressional system, but it also makes it very difficult to abolish the office of the Queen.
The second point is that it’s easy to say “Get rid of the Queen.” The follow-up question is: “And replace her with…?” If the answer to that is, “Why, a President, of course,” the response is: “A strong President or a weak President?”
As muffin and I have attempted to explain, the Queen has significant legal powers under the Constitution. She doesn’t exercise them on her own initiative, because she has no political legitimacy. But if you simply substitute a president, presumably elected nation-wide, and keep the prerogative powers untouched, then that President may well have political legitimacy to use those powers. You could easily find yourself changing to a system similar to the current French Republic, where the President is very strong, and there is also a Prime Minister with authority. Or, do you want to follow the German model, where the Chancellor (equivalent to the PM) has the power, and the President is primarily a formal head of state, much like the Queen?
(Note that I’m not saying that the French system is bad - I’m just saying that it is considerably different from the current Canadian system. If we want to go to that system, that’s fine, but it shouldn’t be by inadvertance, by switching to a popularly elected President and then suddenly discovering that the office has the political legitimacy to use the prerogative powers.)
It’s my understanding that this was the underlying reason for the Australian referendum a year ago which retained the Queen - what do you replace her with? The Government proposed that the new President be indirectly elected, but a lot of the voters wanted a direct election, and voted against the proposal. Do any of the Oz dopers have any info on this point?
That’s exactly what happened. When the referendum was first proposed, it seemed that a majority of the electorate was in favour of replacing the British Crown with an Australian President. Whether or not the President would be directly elected by the people or appointed by a majority of both houses of parliament (and I believe agreed to by the Opposition), the intended republican constitution was to be a so-called minimal change model. This means that the President would have approximately the same power as the current Governor General, and whilst being head of state, the Prime Minister would retain the main political power.
A Constitutional Convention comprised of interested monarchist and republican parties was held prior to the referendum in order to work out a model for the proposed republic. The convention decided on the president being indirectly elected, and this alienated the “pro direct election” republicans who ended up voting to retain the monarchy until they could try again at some future point with the model of their choice. This split the republican vote, and the referendum was defeated.
The argument FOR direct election of the President
The argument AGAINST direct election of the President (I’m with these guys)