Abstract
There were two constitutional referendums in Australia on November 6 1999. One was a referendum to make Australia a republic and the other was a referendum about the preamble of the Constitution. Both referendums were defeated because they did not aspire to what the Australian people wanted. This paper considers how the agendas for each referendum arose and why they were defeated. It will focus on the role of Prime Minister John Howard who was instrumental in persuading the public to vote against the republic referendum. In the early 1990's opinion polls showed that public support for a republic was increasing. So the government decided to hold a Constitutional Convention to address the republic issue. The Constitutional Convention concluded that Australia should become a republic and the government should put the question to a referendum. However, those in favor of a republic could not establish a clear consensus on the preferred model of selecting a head of state. So Howard, an impassioned monarchist, took advantage of this opportunity to divide the republicans. In February,1999,he announced a new agenda. This decision complicated the situation and confused the Australian people. Furthermore, there was a dispute between republicans and monarchists over the title of Constituion Alternation Bill. In the end, it was Prime Minister John Howard who controlled the process of 1999's referendums. Contents 1 Arguments For and Against a Republic 2 Constitutional Convention 3 Process of Constitutional Alteration Bills 4 Conclusion
