Monarchists cannot put any logical argument against a republic , so they reiterate the same tired clichés as they have done since before the 1999 referendum .

If it is true that " nothing will change " why do they not allow the establishment of a republic , minimising the cost of the referendum ?

If it is true that " the Governor General is effectively the head of state " , why not allow an uncontested referendum to put this beyond doubt ? In reality , it is quite clear that the head of the Windsor family , for the time being , is Australia 's head of state .

Apart from any other reasons , we need a republic because : it is demeaning for Australia to have an unelected un Australian as head of state , it is archaic and insulting for Australians to be expected to bow and curtsey to a foreign aristocrat who would have achieved nothing in life , but for a grossly privileged birth in another country .

One gets sick of republicans making the case for a republic while ignoring the elephant in the room. The referendum question has to state whether the president will be elected, by all voters, or selected, by some specified body .
A selection proposal was defeated in the referendum, because many republicans spoke out for elected, which had popular appeal. A house divided will fall and if the Australian Republic Movement cannot get united support for a proposal it is wasting time.
The more stupid of the republicans are calling for a plebiscite. A plebiscite is is a recommendation to introduce some legislation, so it is a waste of money, because the Government cannot legislate to change the constitution.
Stop whining, get your act together.

The Republican movement cites the need for an Australian head of state. There is no need for any head of state. Australia has a government. There is no need for a figurehead ruler in addition to the government. The monarchy serves no purpose in a republic. A republic needs no vestige of the monarchy which is all a head of state is.

If a republic would be so benign and make little difference, why bother with the idea anyway. Massive cost for no gain whatsoever. We would feel better about ourselves? What tosh! If a few people are that woosy, stiff cheese. I don't what the massive costs incurred through changing everything just to make a few big girl's blouses feel heroic. Besides, the 'republicans' cannot even come up with a concrete idea of their fantasy. Until they do, they are not going to be taken seriously. They will be continue to be seen as usual suspects and malcontents who want everything about Australia to be changed for the worst for no good reason.

If It ain't broken, don't fix it!

David f
There is a need for a Head of State. The need is to have someone without undoubted authority to force a non- functioning parliament back to the electors.

There was a need in N S W in 1932 when Jack Lang was sacked by Governor Sir Phillip Game and in 1975 when Sir John Kerr, a Labor man all his life, was sufficiently a lawyer to sack Gough Whitlam.

In both cases the credibility of the financial structure of the country was in peril and the people had to resolve it at an election.

in both cases the chaos was resolved by decisive votes in favour of stability.

The weakness in the present system is that the Governor General is, in practice, appointed by the Government in power.It was just a matter of luck that Kerr was able to understand what was at stake and to overcome the tendencies of his history and loyalties, allowing him to resolve the problem.

With parliaments there can always be periods of non- functioning which only the people can resolve.

We need a person with undoubted, and express power to send the Parliament back to the people, whenever he or she considers, in his or her absolute discretion, a crisis of government has arisen.

That person should not owe his position to the government in power but to either direct election or appointment by all State and Federal governments.