Chris Golis is right to have limited confidence in the ARM’s strategy. It ignores the real issue.

Becoming a republic involves hiring a new head of state. Any business hiring a staff member decides firstly what role it wants the staff member to perform. The ARM by-passes this essential step, as if the role will somehow be the same as the Queen’s.

This shows the ARM for what they really are - alternative monarchists. If you simply transfer the powers of the Crown to a local head of state, you have a temporary substitute monarch.

At present, Crown powers are never exercised by the Crown. They are manipulated by local politicians who cannot achieve their aims democratically. A contemporary example - in the present Parliament, it would be possible for legislation to pass without Labor support. But the Labor Government could then advise the Governor-General not to assent to the law; effectively vetoing the majority decision. The ARM would transfer this power of veto to a president. But why should the power exist?

Chris, there is a coherent republican proposal where all the fine details have been worked out. See www.advancingdemocracy.info. Advancing Democracy is based on democratic principle. It changes the role of our head of state. We don’t need an alternative Queen. We need a Governor-General of Parliament, to preside over debates and make Parliament work. Give the head of state a real job.

The Queen of a country that treats her Christians and her heritage as poorly as Britain is probably no longer the right choice as Australian head of state.

@Phillip Howell I had a quick look and unfortunately I disagree with your argument. My views are best summed up in a previous OLO article.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7503

Under the Westminster system you effectively elect a government for 3 years and they have carte blanche. There are two constraints, whether they will be re-elected and whether they perform so badly that a disinterested referee, the Queen/Governor General decides that for the sake of the country it needs another election (the reserve powers).

Having grown up in the USA I prefer the Westminster system.

Much of what has been posted in this thread has merit, certainly Queen Lizzie has by her demonstrated disinterest has abdicated her responsibility to the people of Australia. Likewise, governors / governors-general have for many years been simply convenient tools of the bloodsucking parasites. Transforming Australia into a presidential republic 'could' potentially (at least in theory) solve many of the present issues with non-existent accountability, however there is the very real risk that any of the present crop of bloodsucking parasites would attempt to turn the transition into merely another power-grab. Thats exactly what occurred with the previous referendum and its certain to be the case next time.

Make no mistake, I have no time or respect for the present con-job which entails expenditure of millions or dollars for utterly useless oxygen-bandit figureheads. Having an el presidente' who actually takes an active interest in the operation of parliament would undoubtedly be a very good thing. Consider the following however. Firstly, our present crop of bloodsucking parasites are largely failed lawyers adept in twisting words. Secondly, their lips can be observed moving whenever they utter anything. Quite obviously we can't have any confidence in ANYTHING produced by these bottom-dwellers regardless what colour brochures they distribute.

Suggested solution, since we can't rely on the 'honorable' members to be anything like remotely 'honorable' (the terms ;politician' & 'honorable' being mutually exclusive), any discussion & implementation of an Australian republic must be left exclusively to the sheeple. In particular, politicians / lawyers / magistrates / judges / bureaucrazies / members of 'the establishment' / public company directors / friends and / or family members of the aforementioned must be absolutely prohibited from taking any part whatsoever.

Whenever pollies want to distract the sheeple they trot out a red herring. This herring has been trotted out so often that it is getting a bit smelly.
The acid test for this is"
Which would you sooner have, the Queen or GW Bush at the head person.
IMHO there is no comparison at all and you would have to be brain dead to prefer Dubya.
More to the point if we are going to change the way we are governed, would be to bring in referendums, so we had genuine democratic input.

Regardless of whether our future president is elected by the people or appointed by Parliament, he or she will owe his or her position to the political establishment. That has worked brilliantly in the US, hasn't it? The problem is that our political and economic systems are both very good at bringing sociopaths to the top. (We are unlikely to ever be allowed citizen initiated referenda as a countervailing force.) Introducing an element of chance, however, increases the odds of getting someone with a bit of power or influence into the system who isn't a sociopath. A hereditary monarchy can do this nicely. I recall one of my friends telling me that he would rather be ruled by Prince Charles than the current lot of politicians. "He may have some strange ideas, but at least the Prince means well."

Perhaps we should do as Norway did in 1905 and set up our own Australian monarchy with the powers of the current Governor General and hopefully free licence to embarrass our politicians, if that is possible. Whatever family we picked would be Australian in a generation or two, dealing with the concern of the enthusiasts for a republic that the head of state should be Australian.

Robert LePage,

I would prefer neither but, at least, we would get to vote for or against GW Bush. The acid test is exactly that, viz, that we get to vote for one of them. Having travelled to the UK I was surprised that many British people view the "royal" family as nothing more than a tourist attraction.

The fact is the monarchy is totally irrelevent to Australia.

Agree, more or less, with Francis.
An online plebiscite would allow some of the proposals to be included or dismissed from any following referendum, which should first ask, if we the people want an Australian as head of state, yes or no.
Then, what model of selection we the people want? By the people or by the parliament? Yes or no!
If we are to have a referendum on this topic, why not also ask if we want a bill of rights, which would act to curtail the unbridled power of politicians, to trample over them at will, or legislate them out of existence?.
One assumes the President would be largely a ceremonial figure head?
Have no real power of veto, and no longer be the virtual commander in chief, of the armed forces?
To reiterate, the plebiscite also ought to ask whether we the people elect our president, or it is left to two thirds of the parliament?
Which could place unprecedented new power in the hands of the Prime Minister?
Instead of the Governor General using reserve powers to dismiss a Govt, the PM, would be able to remove the Governor General/President?
The argument for retaining the present arrangements, are that that would exclude the normal political corruption, special interest lobbyists and the ability by the most powerful, to buy/bid for the position.
In any event, the position can't ever be allowed to fall into the hands of former power hungry Politicians?
A President Rudd anyone, or maybe a President Palmer?
Rhrosty.

Many of the ideas mentioned have merit, however what are the chances of power-mad bloodsucking parasites offering to give away part of their control over the sheeple ?? I suggest that finding a clutch of rocking horse eggs would be infinitely more likely. Sure they SHOULD ask us if we want an Australian head of state, a bill of rights, and for that matter, citizen initiated referenda. Fact is they WON'T because that means less power for the bloodsucking parasites ... absolutely unthinkable.

Aside from that, why on earth would we want a ceremonial head of state ?? We already have a bunch of horribly expensive albeit totally useless 'ceremonial' parasites who fill their time swanning around big-noting themselves. Another level of control over parliament would be a good thing, providing the people have control over el presidente'. Scatterbrained females (or males for that matter ... its just that the present GG & QLD governor are the former) need not apply, how about someone like Peter Cosgrove ?? At least he should know how to whip a mob of unruly brats into line.

Agree with Francis, both are pains, Bush and Liz, when the average person like myself views the monarchy they see a person with untold wealth and bling, one only had to watch the wedding of Phil to Liz, front row plenty of bling and gold carriages, second row, by herself in nun'garb, Phil's mother.
Can someone please explain why all the fuss over these people, what really do they do to warrant all the bling, bow and scrape, what for, they all sit on the toilet just like you and I,why should the monarchy be handed down from one to the next for ever and a day, lets have someone who has earned the position as Head of Australia, I could think of plenty of people.
Bring on an Australian Republic, the sooner the better

Ron Unz, publisher of The American Conservative, has demonstrated time and again the extraordinary ability to re-examine settled issues and show that the accepted conclusion was incorrect.

In terms of democracy, and any constitutional change to a Republican model we should consider the following:

Unz is discussing the efficacy of democracy. Does the way democracy works in America provide any more self-rule than in undemocratic regimes? He offers this example:

“Most of the Americans who elected Barack Obama in 2008 intended their vote as a total repudiation of the policies and personnel of the preceding George W. Bush administration. Yet once in office, Obama’s crucial selections, Robert Gates at Defence, Timothy Geither at Treasury, and Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve, were all top Bush officials, and they seamlessly continued the unpopular financial bailouts and foreign wars begun by his predecessor, producing what amounted to a third Bush term.”

Today, the few Americans who are free of the constraints imposed by dogmas on their ability to think and to process information have a huge responsibility for their small number.

The assault on the rule of law began in the last years of the Clinton regime, but the real destruction of the US Constitution, the basis for the United States, was achieved by the neo-conservative George W. Bush and Obama regimes.

Wars without declarations by Congress, torture in violation of both US and international law, war crimes in violation of the Nuremberg standard, indefinite detention and assassination of US citizens without due process of law, universal spying on US citizens without warrants, federalisation of state and local police now armed with military weapons and uniforms, detention centers, the need to present papers (identification) not only at airports but also on freeways, streets, bus terminals, train stations, and at sporting events.

If this is the Republican model of democracy at work, I hardly support any notion to work toward going down that version of the ‘Republican’ road

Why do so many contributors refer to America, as if their system is somehow relevant to Australian republicanism? I don't know any Aussie republican who is attracted to the US model, which, after all, is 230 years out of date, whereas ours is in the comparatively early stages of senility at 110 years old.

The specific changes suggested by a republican model are all-important. Nothing in my very detailed Advancing Democracy proposal remotely resembles the American model, and while the ARM merely has suggestions these days, rather than a specific proposal, they haven’t suggested an executive president, which is the key features of America’s mess.

A real job?
Perhaps an elected President, could also assume the role of speaker, to finally and at long last, give that roll complete independence and take it away from partisan politicians?
One assumes any continuing powers of veto, would then reside in the senate? Currently, the speaker only votes to break a complete deadlock, a power that ought to be retained if we the people, elect a President/Speaker?
Perhaps as part of general reform, a plebiscite could also ask if we the people, wanted to replace our hugely manipulated preference system, with a proportional representative one and primary selections by the people, of all intending candidates, regardless of their political colour scheme?
If the true aim is to achieve a better form of democracy, by the people, for the people, of the people, then surely proportional representation and primaries, would achieve at least some of that, as would a long overdue bill of irrevocable rights, and maybe a citizens' initiated referendum!?
Perhaps the latter could avoid every hare-brain scheme or single issue focus group, if say, the proponents were obliged to get 50-100,000 verifiable signatures from still living registered voters?
Rhrosty.

As Australians have proven to be ungovernable, a benevolent dictator would be best.

Truly, taking our governance is irrelevant if you are a realist like me.

The notion humankind is moving down an ever-better road has once again been overthrown in the 21st century. No honest person could look around at the current chaos and corruption in the US, UK, Europe or elsewhere on Earth and still argue that humanity continues down the road of perpetual improvement

This tradition began in the 19th century, with its basis in the Enlightenment.

Whether they know it or not, most people are firmly ensconced within the Progress myth. It's just like the air you breathe.

Except for a few throwbacks and Luddites, everybody is a Keynesian or an Austrian, or a Libertarian.

These distinctions make little difference. All these people are "liberals" in the grandest, philosophical tradition.

Without exception, these people believe in continual "improvement" of the human condition, whether they emphasise markets over government or vice versa.

Again, such distinctions make little difference; everybody is swimming in the same water.

Technology is universally hailed as humankind's continuing and ultimate saviour.

GDP is a precise measurement of our progress. If GDP goes up, everyone rejoices. If it goes down, we vow to try harder. No one questions these assumptions, despite ultimately trivial political differences about how to grow GDP.

Are humans rational? No.

Are our politicians rational and good-hearted in this sense? No.

Are our politicians and business leaders rational and good-hearted in this sense? No.

Are consumers rational and good hearted in this sense? No.

Are economists, environmentalists and other purported leaders rational? No.

Humans are unconscious creatures motivated by instinctual drives and other hidden agendas they do not even begin to comprehend.

Do you disagree with the following?
•Tradition has great value
•Continuity has great value
•Conservation has great value
•Stability has great value
•Constraints (on behaviour) have great value

All these things have great values, but have been lost by the ideology of Progress.

If you disagree, you are liberal, if you agree you are conservative, I do not subscribe to a philosophy of "improvement" in the human condition. Progress is an illusion

Geoff of perth,
Excellent, what else can there be said ? Sadly, the do-gooders & hangers-on will do their utmost to discredit the facts.

Geoff of Perth,

You write :

Tradition has great value - it all depends on the tradition. Thank God, we have dispensed with a number of traditions.

Continuity has great value - continuity with what?

Conservation has great value - it all depends on what is being conserved.

Laughter.

Geoff of perth,
It's amazing how the brainwashed/morons can't see the obvious so they dig as hard as they can to find the devious.

Individual,

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. It does you no credit to libel your opponents but, perhaps, shows the weakness of your argument.

Democracy, Winston Churchill once famously said, is the worst form of government except for all the others ever tried. But has it ever been tried?

In columnist Harold Myerson’s words, “the problem isn’t that we’re too democratic. It’s that we’re not democratic enough.”

Myerson wrote in “Foundering Fathers,” printed in the American Prospect in October 2011, “The authors of the U.S. Constitution, for example, grounded ultimate power in “we the people” while denying them any such power or even much access to it.”

I think we need a much bigger rethink of the way we govern ourselves, the push for a Republic is but one suggestion, unfortunately it has more traction and support opposed to possible other better democratic government systems.

As far as I'm aware, anarchy has never been tried

Before automatically responding 'that will never work' consider that the key problem with every single political system ever tried since the dawn of time has been abuse of power (power corrupts)

Isn't it time we looked closely at a system in which no individual has more power than anyone else ??

Anarchy is the refuge of all political systems. They all end up there eventually.

The best system I can think of is the mind your own bloody business system! This one might just have a chance.

“The authors of the U.S. Constitution, for example, grounded ultimate power in “we the people” while denying them any such power or even much access to it.”

It's called the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps that's why they're trying to take their guns of them?

What's the point of being a Republic when it's the same mutts living in it that are there now ?
It doesn't matter what fancy descriptions for whatever fancy form of Government when the constituents aren't up to scratch themselves ?

A Republic means much more than just an “Australian Head of State”. The essential question remains: What kind of Republic? The ARM fails to deal with that aspect.

1. The approach to constitutional renewal requires a comprehensive strategy to reform governance problems. Piecemeal tinkering won't fix that. It hasn't worked for 112 years. Why should Australians continue to be bogged down under this archaic set of ground rules; an electoral system that grossly favours the major parties; a Westminster system that virtually guarantees functional amateurism in the Ministry through lack of choice?
2. The ARM's minimalist approach to a Republic remains totally inadequate. It should only be seen as a first step of a comprehensive strategy towards renewal of governance systems. That should include replacing the dysfunctional, costly federation.
3. The major parties have no policies of this kind in their platforms. This means that the people and their community organisations will need to develop platforms and channels with a view to effect major changes.
4. There is clearly a growing lack of trust in government institutions. There is a crisis of confidence by the public when, as in 2010, 3.25 million people avoided to vote. In a country which has compulsory enrolment, compulsory voting and compulsory preferencing! Ask yourselves: why the rush of new parties to get registered? Expect another Hung Parliament.

Surely, it is the democratic right of a sovereign people to completely re-write the Constitution and change the systems of governance. Waiting until the Queen abdicates is plainly nonsensical. Three recent PMs have conveniently dumped the issue into the too hard basket. The Gillard Government should revisit this issue as soon as possible. Multiple plebiscite questions could even be put to the voters at the forthcoming election to start an inexpensive consultation process, or even earlier on line. On the basis of the answers an appropriate first referendum could follow soon after. That can be done NOW Ms Gillard. May be this the only opportunity just in case you lose the election. Tackling the Republic issue in this fashion might even get you over the line.

individual - What's the point of being a Republic when it's the same mutts living in it that are there now ?

That is indeed a large part of the problem we face, given the most apathetic sheeple ever on planet earth, its difficult to imagine any significant change to the political circus. Even the fact that there are still one-eyed ALP fanatics & one-eyed LNP fanatics makes one question the nous of the sheeple.

klaas - Why should Australians continue to be bogged down under this archaic set of ground rules; an electoral system that grossly favours the major parties; a Westminster system that virtually guarantees functional amateurism in the Ministry through lack of choice?

Simple, the sheeple rate footbrawl / thugby / Days of Our Drearies / Home and Away far more relevant than the political circus

klaas - There is clearly a growing lack of trust in government institutions. There is a crisis of confidence by the public when, as in 2010, 3.25 million people avoided to vote. In a country which has compulsory enrolment, compulsory voting and compulsory preferencing! Ask yourselves: why the rush of new parties to get registered? Expect another Hung Parliament.

**ANYTHING** would be a significant improvement on the ALP / LNP rabble. Personally I'd rather vote for the drovers dog than the red-headed witch or the RAbbott !! At least mangy old hounds have some concept of honor, they don't tell porkies, and one always knows where they stand with a canine.

klaas - Surely, it is the democratic right of a sovereign people to completely re-write the Constitution and change the systems of governance.

Agreed, however the depth to which our elected officials have sunk & their untold arrogance / avarice ensures we can't expect any sense from that quarter. Mind you, even if the sheeple miraculously started taking an interest, the bloodsucking parasites in Canberra would declare martial law before allowing citizen initiated referenda or meaningful public input into a republic. Ask yourself why the staged event in Tasmania that led to the sheeple being disarmed ??