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