“What is the Indian secret of success? I believe it is the way in which the country elects a president. Every five years a new president is elected at a Presidential Convention. The electors are not just the Federal Parliament, but every member of every state and regional parliament.”

So, the country does not, in fact, elect a president. It is politicians who elect a president.

Hardly democratic!

It’s no good saying, “But the people elect the politicians who elect the president”, because the people, like Australians, are able to elect only those politicians put forward by political parties – i.e. the cronies of party members.

Already, unless we vote for an independent politician, we have to vote for some rube put up by the party we favour. This is why we continue to get the same sort of dropkicks in government that we do.

Why on earth would we allow these same dropkicks to foist another snout in the trough on us?

We are poorly enough served now by so-called elected politicians. We don’t need another strata of stupidity by way of a president.

Firstly, there is an error in the article. Her Majesty's representatives in the States are known as her Governors, not Governors-General.

That said, the article totally fails to come to grips with the central point of the whole republic question - that of the new political divide, which is between the elite and the people. As recently demonstrated in Ireland, where the entire business and political elite failed to persuade the people to endorse the Lisbon Treaty, the new battleground is no longer between left and right, but between the elite and the people. I suppose it is understandable that politicians in Australia do not wish to acknowledge what the people really think of them, but the failure to do so simply means that we will forever repeat the process of having constitutional referenda proposed and defeated. I would suggest that proponents of a republic ponder the statement from a Broken Hill miner in 1993 (a solid Labor voter), which I think was the best comment on the republic:

"I would have to vote NO. What an opportunity to stick it up Keating, without having to elect Hewson."

Those interested in constitutional reform should consider those likely to meet with the approval of the people, otherwise it will be an exercise in futility. One worthy of consideration would be to have a compulsory additional candidate in each seat at an election, which would be VACANT. VACANT would have votes and preferences like any other candidate, and if VACANT wins, the seat would not be filled. In addition, VACANT would vote NO in all divisions, could not resign before the next election, and would not draw salary or expenses.

Another possible reform would to provide for electors to become registered to a particular party. This would mean that they wouldn't have to turn up to vote, as their vote would go automatically to the registered party. They would, of course, be able to change their registration right up to the close of the poll. In referendums, you could register for YES or NO, without having heard the question.

Pigs might fly!

what really gets up my nose about Australian politics is this; If we vote for greens, the hidden agenda is Gay rights. If we on the other hand long for a change of government and vote Labor; have a guess what, here comes the republic. Save your energy you pro dictator lobby. It will never happen in this country. We are too smart to be ripped-off by the pro lobby. But run it passed us all again for proof if you wish.

Now the history lesson. Since when was the Roman empire ever a Democracy? It only ever waged wars and defended boarders throughout its whole history. When was that ever undertaken with a view to Democracy and by the use of Democratic means. Even in its death throws when subjected to domination by Papal authority was that period ever Democratic?

Now the French, could history be any more mad? Would Chris Gollis have Australia trudge down a similar path . I think the count of rolling heads was 250,000 in a three year period.
India…Far out! And the USA and its current globalized rampaging “Mad man” President George W Bush?
God save the Queen (Woops, whose God)? And ra,ra,ra

As an ex-pat Aussie I am sending all Aussies a message of hope and reflection.
I would never vote for a republic in Australia because of some very simple reasons.
1. The status of Australia at the moment is so successful in consideration of most other countries that it brings the old adage "If it ain't broke don't fix it" to mind.
2. The most serious reason not to vote for a republic is the membership of those that form the Republican block. I just have to remember the disaster of the first big debate about this and I watched all of the 2 weeks and it was just unbelievable what these fools were saying and what is worse they were totally disorganized. These people would have us believe that they could wright a new Australian constitution when they can not even agree about the simplest things. That in itself is a joke and I do not want that joke on me.
Most of these people in the Republican movement are ideologists that really have no grounding in detailed reality. That is a big problem.
3. Although I do not have any strong relationship to the Queen of England it is not her that I like but the established and very tested administration that this has given us. A stable and tried and true system that these Republicans want to reinvent in a few short months. Absolutely ridiculous concept. Instead of wasting millions of dollars on this stupid pursuit Australia should spend its dollars on energy solutions and defense systems against the obvious coming conflicts of the world's future. Its time to get your collective heads out of the sand and face the reality that is coming. I can just imagine what would happen under the new REGIME!

plerdsus

"Firstly, there is an error in the article. Her Majesty's representatives in the States are known as her Governors, not Governors-General."

Not so, State Governors are Lieutenants-Governor.

All,

-1- The underlying issue here is sovereignty (ahem). Australia is no longer an extension of Britain.

The latter was a mercantilist colonising country. This stituation was when Britain was "Great" Britian. But in the twentieth century she didn't even pay her war debts. And still hasn't!

Moreover, Britain represents an Old World structure from medieval times. It still has a House of Lords!

Her political agenda is fusion with Europe; yet, she hedges her position, via the remnants of the Commonwealth. The Monarchy is kernel to this action.

Lastly, we all know, history's greatest fool, Winston Churhill, would allow Australia fall and later, perhaps, to be retaken.

Britain, fair enough, interested in - Britain. She couldn't eben defend herself. In contrast, Australia is a new world country with great potential in twenty-first century, as noted by Ronald Regean.

What is a monarchy? Basically, medieval oligarchical familialism.

Besides, under globalisation and as a result of immigration, Australia is a regional Asian power, it isn't England.

- Britain represents sunset. Australia sunrise.

-2- The idea of having a power above politics is a good one. This can be achieved with a G-G modelled on the present system, wherein, the power to return a government to the people is held a president in council with members of the High Court of Australia. Parliament and the Courts are held accountable to a Bill of Rights administered by the Courts.

- We can have the same safe-guards unto ourselves

Oliver,

Wrong. States have both a Governor and a Lieutenant-Governor to fill in when the Governor is not available.

-3- Hypothetically, if the Queen left England and became an Australian citizen, I would be happy for Her Exellency Ms Windsor to become a transition president. Our Head of State should be an Australian. Herein, we would not be subjects of The Crown. Instead, the President is Defender of the People, and the Office of President subordinate to, We, The People.

Albeit, she would need to recognise the separation of Church and State. The British monarch doesn't.

-4- Why an English Queen, if you want a monarchy? We could replace the British monarchy with an Australian likeness. Is a pomp any better than an Aussie to fulful this role?

In historical terms, The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, renamed The House of Windsor, is quite young , so its not like dropping an Egyptian of Chinese dynasty.

Monarchists could find a deep-rooted Australian family.

- There is othing wrong with the hardworking and dedicated Queen, for Britain, of which, we are no longer a part. I greatly admire her. Moreover, via the Constitution, I recognise her elevated position and would serve under it. But, it is the Constitution, which needs to be modernised. Said, Australian Constitution does need the Queen.

-5- Please note, Britain no longer regards herself under direct/indirect Norman-French rule. The Norse-French can't Constitutionally interfer with Britain's people or its parliament.

-6- Should a Black, a Catholic, an Antheist or a Jew, be allowed to become Chief of State of Australia. Presently, these groups can't.

-7- What historians, Toynbee and Quigley, recognize is that societies die, if power brokers maintain the status quo past its, "used by date"

I am amazed that the nit picking and bloated pseudo intelectualization going on here seems more important than the question of "who" will write this new Republic into law and who will be the guiding hand and as I see it we have not a single statesman that even comes close to the necessary abilities and moral fiber to even attempt this.
Until we have people of stature in this country I will never vote for a change because the risks far outweigh the pros.

We do not need a republic and we do not need to have this whole process engage the nation while other matters are quietly swept under the carpet.
Get real Aussies and take a stand against this madness.

I agree with Kasperle here. The idiots we elect are basically brain dead insofar as a constitution for a republic is concerned. An ideal solution would be to have a truely independent member of the community draft something (who had some balls....no populists please!). Drafting a new constitution by commitee or through some kind of populism would be asinine in the extreme anmd terrible for our country as a republic. The constitution would have to be seen as sacred, not some shabby document fought over by the scrapping bevy of ignorant idiots that we elect.

This is no doubt going to become a "debate we have to have", given St. Kevin's thoughts on the matter. But it doesn't seem to have progressed a great deal.

The emotional arguments are still the same, and Oliver has pretty well covered that ground. Even though it is possible to take issue with some of his wilder examples of the politics involved, there really is no point: all the emotional - as opposed to rational - arguments point to an Australian republic.

To argue against simply boils down to a lazy desire to cling to mummy's apron strings, and avoid the responsibilities of growing up.

It is also valid to point out that mummy thinks it is time for us to move on as well - you don't hear the royal family protesting "don't go, don't go."

But as plerdsus points out, the devil is in the detail.

We have moved, and continue to move, away from a system that effectively represents "the will of the people". For example, the link between what a politician is allowed to say when presenting an agenda prior to an election, and what the country subsequently holds them responsible for, is irretrievably broken.

And the reality is, that until we are able to trust our political leaders to perform their tasks on our behalf diligently, honestly and in full view of the public who elected them, we will continue to be suspicious of change, and powerless to effect it.

Apathy will, unfortunately, continue to rule. Mummy's not going to throw us out, and the system is not sufficiently broken to warrant a popular uprising, complete with violent demonstrations, people chaining themselves to railings etc.

Quite possibly, the best approach would be to simply let Kevin decide for us. We could then whinge happily to each other about how it doesn't work very well, how it was all so much better when Betty ruled, and how outrageous it is that jumped-up politicians earn so much for doing so little.

But at least we could all blame someone, and then simply get on with life.

Mr Right,

"Wrong." - Mr. Right

Yep. Have to admit it. I was wrong. Should have checked a State Constitution.

"States have both a Governor and a Lieutenant-Governorto fill in when the Governor is not available." - Mr. Right

However,

CONSTITUTION ACT 1902 - SECT 9B (5): "The Lieutenant-Governor or Administrator shall not assume the administration of the government of the State or act as deputy to the Governor unless the Lieutenant-Governor or Administrator, as the case may be, has taken on that occasion, or has previously taken, the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance and the Oath or Affirmation of Office in the presence of the Chief Justice or another Judge of the Supreme Court."

States [Example, NSW] administration isn't a relief like Julia Gillard replacing Kevin Rudd, while Rudd is unavailable, say on offshore visits. A Lieutenant-Governor, as an Administrator, apppears more significant circumstance than taking-on the over-flow duties, because the Governor "is unavailable". Opening flower shows and the like.

The Lieutenant-Governor does seem not act causually as a deputy to the Governor.

James Spigelman, sworn in as Chief Justice of NSW in 1998, is Lieutenant-Governor of NSW. The Official State link is not to a Vice-Regal site, rather to the Supreme Court:

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/supreme_court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_cjspigelman

I note Spigelman is a political appointee, which suggests, that even with an Australian President appointed by Parliament, a party's Man or Women could readily be put in place, e.g., Bill Haydon.

The alternative of direct voting for President, does politicise, the Office, which is supposedly above politics, because the bearer holds a direct mandate.

If realisable, maybe, a comprise position is for the Parliament to produce a list of five candidates to the Public for election on a preferential voting basis. Three candidates must not have belonged to a political party, under oath or statutory declaration. Voting returns requirements would be along the lines of those relating to referenda.

The candidates are put the people by Government not by a policial party.

I settle for nothing less than direct election. The idea that politicians who lie to our faces and pass repugnant laws and taxes against us, don't deserve the right to preselect anyone.

And Oliver, do you really believe politicians making a short list of possible presidents *won't* be political? Really?

Steel,

The catch with direct election, as you probably have heard before, is
the President and the P.M., both act with a mandate to strong action. There are two suns in the sky.

I recognize what you are saying about it being virtually impossible for politicians to be a-political with senior appointments. Yet,for President appointment some form of public ratification only, is, I suggest, the better system. The President has to represent everyone and make the Parliament accountable to the Constitution and the People.

With a direct political vote you grow conflicts, as now between the Houses.

The People and the Constitution must stand above the President and Parliament. Moreover, there needs to be a Bill of Rights above the Courts and Parliament. Lastly, there needs to be a vehicle for the People to ostacize invividual politicians from Office, mid-term, beyond the control of the party in power.

Another option might be to call the P.M., President, and give the G-G's powers to the High Court, collectively.

I'm happy to keep Liz until the new "best" model is developed. For Republicans, like me, I agree, we are not there, yet: We are still "a house divided" [Lincoln].

Cheers.

Kasperle,

I have to point out to you that tacitly denigrate Republican values while using those values to support your own beliefs.

To quanify: you say that the present Constitution has worked well, however you forget to mention two things

(1) the reason this Constitution has (arguably) been successful is precisely because of what Republicans today have what the drafters of the present Australian Constitution had: hindsight.

They said to themselves 'right lets look at the US and British const...ah here are the problems, this is how ours can be BETTER'. We say 'right, we should have our own Head of State, we should have limits on government power, we should clear not implied rights, we need a President who, unlike the Queen, does not have the power to veto Parliament (as Kind Edward wanted) and a Head of State who is legitmated by the Australian people, we need to get Federalism working again & a Constitution that reflects the 21st century, where we don't have stupid racist clauses in our Constitution, but rather one rooted in liberty'.

(2) You fail to mention that drafters of the present Constitution, philosopher Kings as they were, debated all night and day, and did not consult far and wide: at least ARM are asking for a plebescite. On these two counts, you stand condemned.

There is nothing wrong with debate. That is the beauty of it: a democracy that is formed without guns but by pure debate and reason. Furthermore, just because its the best does not mean it cannot be bettER (if it ain't broke doesn't fix it would mean the candle would be used instead of the light bulb, the horse carriage instead of the car). Also, as a libertarian, I think government is taking away our liberties, hence we need a Bill of Wrongs (yes, wrongs).

I also do agree with Oliver and believe Australia is not a nation in decline. Australia is an indepedent, rising nation. So to Kasperle I say 'I might be 19, but mate, you also must of been smoking something and you must of inhaled'.

Get-rid-of-the-GG. Replace-the-President-with-the-PM.

1. He would be elected in primaries: ordinary members of each political party would put up a candidate (both President and Vice President) which reflects 'the aspirations, experience and universal values of the Australian people'(just like in the US. The President must be a Member of Parliament or have a 'likely chance of winning a seat' to run, as the party chooses to define that (if he looses his seat but wins an election, I think its obvious what would happen here). The-President-represents-the-party-with-a-majority-in-the-House.

2. The President must attend Question Time (in addition to optional yearly televised debates) and handpick his Ministers. In addition everyday citizens, with preprepared questions, can ask questions during special QT sittings and such sitting would be compulsory and allow people to respond in an orderly fashion. Vice-President-becomes chairman-in-the-Senate.

3. The President's power is severly limited. S/he would have two powers: one, s/he can call a general election every three to four years (have the GGs Reserve powers if the Senate rejects money bills or any other disruption were to occur) & two, establish executive enterprise zones which must NOT breach the Bill of Wrongs (prohibitions on government power in the Constitution) OR Federal / State functions: in creating a‘splinter departments’ to trial policies s/he must have written consent of Governors of a State & that of the Mayor of the all local councils involves in such a trialed policy – the splinter department would set new regulations and applied in areas that want the new policy trialled, eg education vouchers. Such zones, however-large, can-only-be-applied-in-no-more- than-two-states.

4. However, Parliament is the real Head of State: even in military issues a majority of Parliament must give the President power to *use* the military.

5. Impeachment would occur US style; however, it would require the support of sixity percent of Parliament.

6. No pay rises shall occur while in government; financial transactions of Ministers must be transparent.

7. There would be limitations put on the judical power also: they cannot define when life begins; that is up to the legislature to decide. 2/3-majority-of-Parliament-can-veto-a-spurious-Constitutional interpretation-by-the-HC.

** Or rather should I say replace the PM with a President.