So, let's get this right. David Smith has emerged from the crypt to accuse republicans of saying some things that he doesn't agree with and at one stage he presumes to know more about the law than an ex Chief Justice of the High Court.

But wait a minute, there isn't one comment in his article by anyone post 1999 -- post referendum! So, in other words, David Smith has decided to lazily denigrate republicans by using quotes from his own book written just after the referendum.

David Smith, I can uderstand why you are trying to make amends for your part in the coup that toppled Gough Whitlam in 1975, which led to a vast increase in republicanism, but seriously -- where have you been for the last 11 years!

This is the laziest, shallowest, article since...well...since the last article written by David Flint, I guess.

Quite funny that defossilising David Smith to rehash old battles would be seen by anyone as being argument against the republic. Try harder, ACM.

Hmmm! Sir David cites some eminent Australians who are republicans. Janet Holmes a Court, Sallyanne Atkinson, Richard Woolcott, Bill Ferris, Lindsay Fox, Neville Wran, Sir Anthony Mason..... They cannot all be dills.

Apart from denigrating these fine Australians and quoting them substantially out of context and overemphasising what were tangential comments to their overall views, Smith makes no worthwhile argument in his piece. It is really just a cut and paste of what he has said before.

Speaking of myths, though, the ACM promote a separate website called "Crowned Republic" and have a link to that on the main ACM homepage. "Crowned Republic". What an oxymoron! A republic is the anthithesis of a hereditary monarchy. It is laughable really, that the monarchists feel the need to promote this furphy as one of their main planks.

great article and highlights the hypocrisy and lies of republican sympathisers. It aint broke so stop fiddling with it....

Why am I even responding to this guy? It's a lot of historical irrelevant muck from an avowed Queen sycophant. Gough should have sacked him.

Sadly, this is but a further litany of misrepresentation and distortion of the real facts concerning the 1999 referendum for a republic. As to be expected, David, a knight of the realm, is so bogged down in the mythology of the monarchy that he is unable to read the mind of the Australian people. That referendum was lost not because the people did not want a republic but because they did not want a republic as specified by the question in the referendum which was "To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and the Governor General being replaced by a president appointed by a two thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament." It is abundantly clear from the wide ranging discussion following the referendum that the people clearly wanted to elect their own president and were of no mind to leave it to politicians.
Consistently, 60% of Australians desire a republic at some time in the future and day by day the voices are rising to have a republic as soon as possible. To wait for the present Queen to die is both absurd in concept and false in logic. We the people will decide on the sovereignty of our nation.
The Australian Republican Movement is not promoting any particular option but presenting in a very reasonable manner, the various alternatives. In the end the Australian people will decide and no stone will be left unturned to inform them clearly of all the issues involved, above all, the irrelevance of the monarchy in Australia of the 21st century. Dr Peter Evans

There is nothing like a discussion on a future Republic of Australia for lifting debate to new intense levels.

My Cat drags in better on its' good days.( Monday was a metre long Grass Snake incidentally.)

When both sides can discuss this in a sensible manner, unlike the first two responses so far , I will get interested!

Meanwhile , I will mow the grass instead.