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.

Labor and the leftists need distractions like 'the republic', 'a new flag', 'trash the Marriage Act, NOW!' and 'poisonous carbon dioxide' as political distractions.

Nobody mention Labor's links with the CFMEU. Hush now.

Zipper lips on those 'Struggle Towns', on sustainability, the social and other problems of over-enthusiastic immigration for the 'Big Australia' and so on. There is quite a list and no apologies and definitely no ideas from Labor's policy-free zone, L'il Willie (Whatever She Says) Shorten.

Much easier to be moral BS artists, spruiking gay marriage and so on. All things that Labor had the opportunity to bring in but shied away from during the long troublesome years of Rudd, Galah'd (+treacherous Greens sidekicks) and then Rudd again.

Don't mention this either,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0MHRSFz6FM

Dear Old Man,

Perhaps the country would be better at times to have a non-functioning parliament. Some of the acts of government should not have been done. Perhaps a non-functioning parliament expresses the will of the people.

The last time the issue was raised, it was effectively killed off, although having popular support, by a PM, who wanted the head to be chosen by canberra politicians!

We need our own head of state rather than watch when it comes to trade deals, as ours actively works against our interests if we're in competition with the UK.

Our head of state lives in and represents a country where we, her so called subjects, need passports and visas/work permits to enter, and where former wartime adversaries, Italy and Germany, have more rights and easier access than we do!

It's time to thoroughly formalize that arrangement and just forget what we sacrificed in men and material for the old dart, during times of immense conflict! Little wonder when the tide of floating poppies measure the scale of that sacrifice drew incredulous gasps from ignorant royals and commoners alike!

A republic is just a single first step, we need a uniquely Australian flag (the eureka stockade?) as well, and a constitution that includes an irrevocable bill of rights. As we are one of the remaining democracies? That just doesn't hae one!

(Guaranteed freedoms the very heart and core of modern democracies) Again resisted implacably by control freak politicians?

And given we ever get to be a republic, we need a head of state chosen by we the people, not control freak pollies trying to progressively roll back our liberties, all while trying desperately by all means possible, to avoid essential overdue reform?

Reform which might conceivably impact a little negatively on them and their self serving cohort!?

Other than that, hard to explain the resistance?
Rhrosty.

Yes let's have a republic. That way this disgusting Turnbull bloke could be our first president, just like he planned last time.

Of course we could have a president chosen by the government of the day. They'd love to be able to get rid of one of their more useless members, by kicking them up stairs to a presidential roll, rather than to the US, or UK as an ambassador.

Hey, I've got it. Let's have a president selected by a committee of ratbag academics. Hell we could have a president just as bad as the last few Australian of the year choices have been.

I'll take even bonny prince Charlie any day, in preference to some football playing thug.

Of course we could direct elect them, & get another politician to feed. What a great idea.

Yet another intellectually shallow article by a supposed republican. It has been such a long time since the ALP promoted genuine thinkers into Parliament.

Whether, and to what extent, a republic makes any difference depends entirely on the model adopted.

Perhaps implicit in the claim of ‘no change’ is advocacy for the ultimate minimalist model - retention of a Governor-General appointed by the Prime Minister. But even that suggestion does involve some change. Deprived of the nonsense of representing a monarch who largely ignores politics, in the interests of self-preservation, we would be even more vulnerable to a Governor-General with delusions of grandeur. Just like John Kerr. This danger increases exponentially if the method of selection changes so that the head of state can claim a greater level of support than the Prime Minister.

Minimalism continues, and potentially worsens, a royalist power structure which permits the people who lost the last election to throw out the elected Government, as happened in 1975. This is completely undemocratic, as is every royal power.

That is why Crown power has to be the focus of a republic. We need to examine each Crown power and see whether it should remain when the monarchy is dispatched. The written Constitution gives extraordinary powers to the monarch. We would be foolish in the extreme to just hand them over to someone else without thinking it through.

In a modern democracy there is no need for a head of state like the Crown. A minimalist president would be a substitute monarch; just as useless as the real thing.

Since most still want a head of state who symbolises unity, make that person take the role of speaker in the House. Chairing debates impartially in our most important forum is a worthwhile job which should be done by a new Governor-General of Parliament.

This is set out in the Advancing Democracy model at www.advancingdemocracy.info. Contrary to some comments, there is a fully developed model for reform which does not just remove the Queen, but improves democracy in the process.

I agree with 'Old Man' Emu? . . . The sooner Australia is removed from the fawning servitude attitude that some misguided mortals give the royals [note lowercase royals] who really are not 'deserving' of anything by their birth other than common respect given to all civilized human beings, instead of media-driven hyped-up 'celebrity status' the happier I will be. Australian troops have been used by the English as "cannon fodder" when it suited, "Eh I say Prime Minister what shall we do about that Dardanelles problem? I know send over some of those Colonials and if we [sorry I mean they stuff up] we can just wash our hands of the motley lot until next time we need them to defend 'The Land of Hope & Glory - Mother of the Free'. Get real - Colonial England subjugated half the 'free of the world' for their own nefarious trading purposes. Ditch the royal establishment as soon as possible and have an Australian Head of State" to keep the various PM political bas - -rds- to account when they get too big for their own boots including impeachment if need be aka honourable? Tricky Dicky Nixon of the land of "In God We Trust"- but only when it suits us.

I am amazed that the real issues on the subject of the republic are never discussed.

The key point is that most Australians consider the political elite to be the enemy of the people.

We are very fortunate to have a constitution where the Prime Minister holds office during the pleasure of Her Majesty's representative.

There is even more comfort in thinking that Her Majesty, either directly or through Her Representatives, is standing by, ready to sack (Section 64) or ready to disallow (Section 59).

Any readers who cannot understand the simple words of these Sections of the Constitution should immediately report to the nearest public school and ask to repeat grades 1 to 6.

People claim that in practice the GG is appointed by the PM.

This is an illusion. The bare truth is that the GG is appointed by the Queen, who in most cases will accept the advice of the PM.

However the genius of the system is that there is no legal requirement for her to do so, and in an emergency she may do otherwise.

The result is that we have one of the best Constitutions in the world, which can only be amended by the people, who have repeatedly confirmed in Referendum after Referendum that they are happy with the current arrangements by voting NO.

It is the forth or fifth oldest in the world, and has safely shepherded us through the last 115 years, when many other countries went through war, revolution, civil war, chaos, or dictatorial rule.

I am sure that there could well be a majority for renaming the GG's title to "Prime Ministerial pisser-offer in Chief".

God Save the Queen!

"Why shouldn't the young men and women of Australia be able to aspire to be our nation's head of state?"

Even as it stands, nothing stops kids from having such sick aspirations to rule over others.
Why, those kids who suffer from an overdose of violent TV shows may already aspire to rule the galaxy.

While we may not be able to prevent the disease, we should not fuel it either.

The author does a wonderful job in dragging down the strawman he created.

The strawman? that there'd be no change under a republic. That fact is, even under the so-called minimalist approach, there would be potentially massive change.

Under the Australian Constitution, the GG has vast theoretic powers. These aren't used by the GG because that person currently has no legitimacy to power. But if such a person were popularly elected either by the people or the parliament, inevitably, at some point, someone would seek to use those powers. In reality there is no minimalist approach. Either make massive changes to the constitution or accept that at some point, we'll end up with a presidential system where the Australian 'president' would have significantly more relative power than any US president.

Republicans (and I generally support the move) hide this aspect of the change because they know it would be the death knell for the push.

______________________________________________________________

"The last time the issue was raised, it was effectively killed off, although having popular support, by a PM, who wanted the head to be chosen by canberra politicians!"

I'm just so sick of this ignorant re-writing of history. The referendum put to the people wasn't written by Howard. It was the majority decision of the Constitutional Convention, was supported by the majority of the delegates and the vast majority of republican delegates. After it failed, they had to find a face-saving meme and so the story that it was all Howard's fault was invented. But anyone with even a passing knowledge of the event, knows that its rubbish. Howard said he'd put whatever question the convention decided on to the people and he did. He then defeated them in open debate and defeated the referendum. But he didn't write the question.
Its really quite fascinating that even recent events can be so little understood and so easily twisted.

When one looks at the success stories of British Commonwealth countries that became a Republic one only needs to point to:

- Zimbabwe (run by a Dictator for Life)

- South Africa (massive crime, failing economy) and

- Pakistan (massive crime, full of violent Muslims and nuclear weapons).

Much of the Republic Debate is rolled into broader Consitutional Change which gives Aborigines a special place and more generous welfare system in Australia. We all support that.

Mhaze; Hansard keeps a very accurate record of who said what and when in our nation's parliament, and according to that(FOI) record, former PM, John howard, did propose that the question should not only be put, but it should include The PM"S preferred minimalist model.

Namely that two thirds of both houses of parliament would chose our new head of state, given one chosen by the people might well have more power than the PM!

Perhaps others commenting here should read it, if only to understand who are rewriting history!

Mr Howard is/was politically astute enough to understand that by placing conditions of his choosing, he could kill the idea in its tracks; and his goal?

And a tactic surely remembered by all those against true gender equality and or, same sex marriage?

If you ever go to visit our head of state, remember to have your passport and visa in order, given we are now effectively, aliens rather than british subjects!

Time for some ratifying change? Let's do it! As others have pointed out we lose nothing except the totally stupid forelock tug? Royals bleed like any other and need to use a bathroom occasionally, like anybody else.

Now if those folks followed in the inherently democratic and egalitarian tradition of King Arthur?

or just the original charter King John, Richard the lionheart's brother agreed to, maybe we would not only not be having this discussion, but rather one about rights first agreed to and then reneged on by a british king.

Rights that made every man's home his castle; a right to be free to forage and roam on his own land, and no imprisonment without a trial by his peers, and no taxation without representation.

And that is just the opening paragraph.

There are several problems with the Republic debate,

if we vote for the president, it will be a popularity contest and some "sports star" or reality TV actor will get it (why are Australian of the year mostly sports stars?)

OR Palmer/Packer/Reinhart will buy the presidency.

Or if parliament votes the president in its jobs for the boys (imagine Rudd as president? no thank you)

At the moment an Australian can become our head of state (just marry a royal and wait your turn)

But again why waste billions on changing a system that is envied around the world. Our Westminster system works and works well (compared to countries that have a president)

I would rather my taxes go to better health, schools, roads etc , than be wasted on someone who needs to "feel" good

Just because we are a republic we are not going to be seen any different on the world stage, we wont get better trade deals, or cure cancer, or save more marriages or pay off debt quicker. We will continue to be the envy of the world both in lifestyle and politically if we stay the same

I come back to my original post - which model are republicans behind? The voter election model or the selection by somebody or other. There seems to some difference among the ranks.
Get behind your preferred model and you are in with a chance at a referendum. Until then stop bleating, it gets irritating.

Such polls a have been taken, suggest that only the voter elected head of state has a chance at a referendum, suggesting anything else is a sure fire recipe to once again kill the idea stillborn!

Even so, this would need to be one where we take several steps, the first being, do we want to be a self governing republic, replete with an Australian head of state!

Get that once across the line and time enough to settle on the either either preferred means!

Let's not get the cart before the horse like last time, only to see the idea shot down i flames, by the clever use of judicious words and the lack of voters real choice?
Rhrosty.

Governments govern, heads of state keep them in check, playing a sort of night-watchman role. In other words, they should have no activist role, they just exist to make sure the government of the day doesn't do anything illegal or totally stupid.

As a republican, I'm happy with whoever is the monarch back in the UK filling that role. I just don't trust any other mechanism to work, either a president chosen by Parliament (or even by both Houses of Parliament together), or a popularly-elected President.

But let's have a referendum about it - in fact, let's clear the decks and have two referendums/referenda on election day, as well as a plebiscite:

* a plebiscite on homosexual 'marriage', with all the options spelt out;

* a referendum on a republic, with all the options spelt out;

and

* a referendum on 'Recognition', with all the options spelt out.

as well as an election.

Let's just get these idiocies out of the way, for another generation or so, so that governments can get on with governing.

Joe

Sorry Rhrosty, you're simply wrong. Not nearly right or part wrong. Completely wrong. Vague assertions that Hansard, somewhere somehow will support your fiction is just mere clutching at straws.

The question put to the people wasn't designed by Howard but by Turnbull and his supporters. Again, given that you lived through it, I'd be fascinated to find out how it is that you (and its not just you but thousands of others)have come to convince yourselves of a complete fiction.

If you want to refresh your memory of what really happened, there are many places. Wikipedia is as good as any:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Constitutional_Convention_1998

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999

Dear Loudmouth,

I challenge your assertion about the role of the head of state being to keep Governments in check.

This is not what happens at present. The Queen and Governor-General generally do nothing except sign what they’re told to sign. The Constitution does not say their role is to keep the Government in check, and it provides no criteria guiding how the monarchy could judge what was “totally stupid” Government action.

Nor should this become the head of state’s role. The roles suggested are in fact held by other institutions. Parliament keeps the Government ‘in check’, and courts decide matters of legality. The role you suggest is utterly superfluous.

It is also highly undemocratic. Each person in the House of Representatives is one of our representatives. You cannot get there except by an open vote. You cannot inherit the position. Why should one person, a head of state, presume to override the decision of all members of the House?

Finally, it is impractical. Modern government is a team sport. No one person is capable of comprehending all the detail of every aspect of government and acting as a ‘check’. All that such a role would do is provide an undemocratic way of frustrating an elected government, as occurred in 1975.

As for ‘not trusting’ any other mechanism, this reflects your mindset rather than any aspect of reality. It is fashionable today to denigrate anyone we ourselves elect. This is nothing more than a manifestation of the irrationalism which has gripped the nation over the last 20 years or so.

Sorry if this comes across as a bit blunt; but it is about time we started to trust our own abilities to make difficult decisions and to vote for those who will implement them.

Hi Phillip,

I should imagine that the Queen, and the G-G, would both have teams of lawyers looking over everything that any government was trying to do as a matter of routine (and that governments know it), and that private messages go flying back and forth far more than we're aware of.

God, I wish this was an issue I gave more than a toss about. There are vastly more important matters that need attention. Closing the Gap and getting people working in their own interests, i.e. genuine self-determination, for one.

Joe

Philip,

What happened in 1975 was that the GG caused an election to be held at which the people expressed their approval of the GG's actions.

That's democracy at work.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding between the role of the GG as currently occurs and the theoretic role an elected president might play. The powers conferred on the GG under the constitution are enormous but are not used because of convention and because the GG lacks legitimacy in terms of using its power. But let me give you a fore-taste of what the nation might look like under an elected president.

Assume Australia became a republic in 1999 with an elected president. The first few presidents were nice polite people who did the same role as the previous GG's.
But now its 2016 and Mr X-LaborPM is running against Kylie Minogue. Kylie's main promise it that she'll wear her 'Can't-Get-you-outta-my-head' dress (https://i.imgur.com/11V3jLS.jpg) at all public events and consequently she's forecast to get 103% of the male vote and agood portion of the transgender vote. She'll win easily. But wily Mr X-LaborPM has a trump card. He knows that the electorate is scared about a possible new GST. So he announces that if elected as president he will use his powers to refuse to sign any new tax into law. He has that power and can override any bill passed by parliament by just not signing it.

While the electorate really likes Kylie's dress they dislike the GST more and MR X-LaborPM gets elected. The parliament then passes the dreaded GST increase and gives it the president to formally sign it.

As per his promise and in accordance with the constitution the president refuses to sign the new act into law. The government tries to find a way to force its will through but there is no such power.

/cont

/cont
Now the new president is feeling pretty strong and decides that the majority of his supporters would like to allow asylum seekers already here to be not forced to go back to PacificSolution Island. So he calls in the ImmigrationMinister and tells him to make it so. The minister refuses such a request. So the president uses his constitutional power to sack the ministerInstead he appoints Ms RefugeeAdvocate to the position with the express purpose of changing the regulations to allow them to stay. Even though Ms RefugeeAdvocate isn't a MP, she is allowed to sit as minister for 3 months - more than enough time to make the required changes. Even if the changes aren't finalised after 3 months, Mr President simply appoints Mr RefugeeLawyer to the role and continues to implement the desired changes.

All the while the government is trying to work out how to regain control of policy making. Finally they decide that the President needs to be sacked via a parliamentary vote. But before that can happen the president simply refuses to allow parliament to sit and then prorogues the House causing new elections. Even if those election don't go exactly the way he wants, it'll be another 5 months before parliament sits again and meanwhile he continues to rule by decree. And so on and so on....

_________________________________________________________________

With an elected president, whether by the people or by parliament, the above won't happen in the first generation after a republic is declared. But it will happen. The power is there and its inevitable that it will be eventually used.

So, if you want a republic, the options are:

* be prepared to have a new system of government where the president has unfettered power for his term or

* remove all his powers as part of the referendum. But that requires re-writing about 10% of the constitution - good luck getting that through.

If the proposed Republic makes so little difference, then we should not have to continue wasting time and effort protecting our constitutional monarchy from the nonsense of the republican movement.
Surely the republicans can find something useful to do with their pointless lives.
I still remember the feeling of relief when Googh was sacked, and have been a staunch supporter of our constitutional monarchy ever since.