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.

@ Aspley get rid of your feral cat , that was a protected Australian snake that it dragged in ! Stop mowing and stop listening to South Pacific Poms like David Smith waffling on about his love for feral Heads of State - we need an Australian Head of State at the top of our Constitutional arrangements .

Aspley are you really sure you're going back to "mowing" the grass...

And your point would be what, Sir David? This would have to be the most disappointing monarchist article I've seen in the last ten years, and there have been some real failures in that time. After ploughing through a weak and deceptive introduction consisting of one lot of paraphrasing after another, telling us what various republican sympathisers supposedly said way back when, I was waiting to get to the actual article. Except there isn't one. No addressing of any real issues whatsoever. And his "saddest case of gross misrepresentation in order to advance the republic" is merely an arcane argument between constitutional lawyers, containing no interest or relevance to anything really. Just like this article.

Ummm... Monarchy? In Australia? Isn't THAT the myth?

Monarchy/Christianity... Both just given lip service by government to keep people still living in the dark ages happy.

You have no hope of getting intelligent coments about republicism.
The other side say if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Have you ever tried to get a stick out of the mud after it has dried.
Monarcists dont know the word debate when it comes to republic.
It's all tooo hard.
It's ok for AU to be tied to dear old England.
Me i recon it's time AU had its own ID.

Damn, here I was hoping for a good opportunity to thrash the severely low quality of this article and everyone beats me to it.

Just thought I would repeat this closing statement by davrosz because it is so true;
"This is the laziest, shallowest, article since...well...since the last article written by David Flint, I guess."
I was actually thinking the exact same thing.
Surely in 10 years of looking at this very site, Mr Smith could have picked some actually relevant statements about, say, the implications of becoming a Republic, instead of some 11 year old remarks and possibly the odd joke by a few dingbats and enthusiasts who have likely since retired from the movement anyway. He was careful to avoid many of the other suggestions and implications other than the very pettiest points nobody even bothers arguing about.

It would be like the Euthanasia debate and focusing solely on the people that think this the beginning of Soylent Green and ignoring tougher points by people arguing legal implications.

Also Peter Piper, I'm sure you've said that same phrase before. But tell me, in light of recent events in parliament, define what "Broken" is, and how we'd get there by "fiddling with it" but not what has happened with our system since?
There is an interesting saying;
"One does not know their country, from what only their country knows".

Desire and Campaigning for a republic is but one string in Fabius bow :)
He has a strategy...that's just part of it.