"Son: And must they all be hanged that swear and lie 'gainst a President?

Mother Julia: Every one.

Son: Who must hang them?

Mother Julia: Why, the honest Republican men.

Son: Then the liars and swearers are fools, for there are liars and swearers enow to beat the honest men, and hang up them.

Beelzebub- I think I have an idea of what you are implying when you brought up the Singaporean approach of having a highly competent group of advisors or people the government (acquired one way or another) to turn to for advice;
Though I am not sure this is necessarily due to a formal arrangement- though I do wonder why Australia seems to clearly lack this;
Either way, this would need to be investigated.

On notes of public apathy vs referenda;

-There may well be a link between public power and engagement; Switzerland demonstrates a success of extremely high engagement and acquaintance with the public in political issues, which may be directly because the people are well aware they have full sovereignty on an issue and have been nurtured in more notions of responsible decision making; in a system such as ours, most people don't bother because they know it's not THEIR input, but the figurehead's and their lobbyists, long before the values of the issue itself are even addressed.

-Even if the majority of people are still ignorant and lazy regardless, so long as referenda are voluntary, it will only be the engaged who will leave their homes to participate (if we were NOT to use a digital voting system). The ratio of a minority of voters is still a more representative body than a couple dozen MPs, and this is ignoring that our parliaments don't actually represent more than 30-40% of Australians anyway, at best, even IN theory.
The event of an extreme minority successfully winning a referenda (which I find unlikely) will only serve to act as a wake-up call for the rest to be more engaged next time.

Hello, looks like Grim has got his typewriter connected to the Internet! Well done, me lad :-)

> So he wasn't a solo wonder boy? Imagine that.
No. He's certainly a uniquely gifted individual upon whom fortune and the gods smiled, and I readily admit to deep respect and admiration for him. He basically gave his whole life to his country - not something I could do, nor many others. A key to his success was that his ambition was always for his country and people, not for himself personally. This is why others were so attracted to him; they knew that what they were struggling for was not the ascendancy of an individual, but a shared ideal of which he was the most able representative. Something of a freak of Nature, really - such people are quite rare.

> All insidious political change comes from Type 'A' Personalities
A very good point. KAEP. Yes, people who seek fame and public recognition for its own sake are invariably inadequate personalities who need external validation to feel fulfilled. This contrasts with those who receive fame as an unavoidable consequence of their calling or profession, and usually find it somewhat wearying.

> an idea of what you are implying .. I am not sure this is necessarily due to a formal arrangement
I agree. It seems to be something that evolves as a matter of necessity in the pursuit of a common goal; but I also think it wise and useful to recognize it when it happens, or even to create it if need suggests.

> though I do wonder why Australia seems to clearly lack this
Ah, now here I'll risk raising your blood pressure and earning your ire with a comment. If you study the history of nations, you'll probably agree that it takes about 500 years (say a dozen generations) to establish one - and I'm speaking of the human aspect - emotions, traditions, and ideals, not merely the legal stuff.

< cont ..

.. cont >
When judged on this basis, European nations are mature adults, China an old man, the US a burly adolescent pumped on testosterone and brute power. Even Singapore qualifies as mature, since the Peranakan Chinese have lived there for centuries. But Australia is like a boy in short pants who hasn't yet untied mother's apron strings. It may be embarrassing to admit, but it's surely the truth.

There's something else, as well. The US has 1776, the UK the Magna Carta, New Zealand the Treaty of Waitangi, even little Singapore has 1965. All of these were crucial events in which the entire nation committed itself emotionally to a vision or ideal, even at the cost of lives. It's this emotional commitment that fuses a mob into a nation, I believe. By contrast, in 1901 the British Parliament passed an act which granted Australia national status - but this was a legal fiat by a foreign power, not the sort of crucial emotional crisis that's needed for true nationhood. As a result, Australia is not yet a real nation IMO, just a legal entity with pretensions to nationhood. This is why we have this dreadful posturing of 'Australian pride'. People in other countries don't go about forever boasting how PROUD they are to be Bigendians - it's a quiet inner conviction that doesn't need verbalizing. This whole thing is an invention of the political spinmeisters to keep the football crowd emotionally pumped. Australians WANT to be a nation, they WANT to feel proud, but they haven't yet found a path to that achievement; and hollow boasting and media jingoism can never provide it.

> people are well aware they have full sovereignty .. and have been nurtured in .. responsible decision making
You're on the ball here, IMHO.

< cont ..

.. cont >
> in a system such as ours, most people don't bother because they know it's not THEIR input, but the
> figurehead's and their lobbyists, long before the values of the issue itself are even addressed.
Spot on! This is the real issue we need to address. All of the legalizing and bureaucratizing can come later - they're quite straight forward. As always, it's the human issues that are the most difficult, both to identify and to address.

> so long as referenda are voluntary, it will only be the engaged who will leave their homes
Yes. You've obviously given a lot of thought to these issues, and equally obviously have a good deal to contribute once that stage is reached; but until the human issues are resolved, none of the others will be in the least effective. It would be like trying to construct a building without foundations - no matter how many times you rebuild the walls, they'll still fall down.

My response to yours Beelzebub is basically an endorsement of human nature as a factor- though in a different light;

When Australians are ready for such a system, there will be a large movement to ultimately bring such a system into place (even be it by a party that endorses these and sets it to constitution).

I would not be against a republic that can enable such rights prematurely tomorrow- but until either (a) such a system comes in, or (b) something changes in Australia (which would still result in option (a) happening) I would personally vote DOWN any republic model and leave this option as a blank slate to be filled by future generations. To do less for symbolism would not only be a huge wasted opportunity, but also reflect a LOT more on Australians (in a poor light) than people might realize.

I would strongly disagree that it's so much a matter of "time" to develop a nation than simply the rate of development of the people. Singapore, Germany and Switzerland are actually very young nations (both complete history of existence and moreso for the first two the fact that they only became/re-became the nations they are today a mere few decades ago). It was just the attitude the people had to doing it properly. We too could potentially get the right political attitude in just a generation, or even tomorrow, so long as people start evaluating deeper the political implications that affect this country- and it IS happening to a fair extent.