[Comment continued]

1975 pointed to a deeper problem in our Constitution. It contains two sets of rules - those which we all expect will be followed, which are only conventions, and those which are actually written into the Constitution. The latter confer powers on the Crown which are incompatible with democracy. Most of the time the problem is not apparent, because parties fight their disputes on the basis of the unwritten, democratic rules. But when it suits one party to fight on the basis of the written rules, which are not democratic, the system breaks.

Anyone who says ‘it ain’t broke’ does not understand the significance of the 1975 crisis. Nor do they understand that by simply removing powers from the head of state, when we change her identity, we can entrench democracy at the same time as removing an obsolete monarchy.

I suggest the author, and others, reads www.advancingdemocracy.info. Then you’ll understand the benefits which could flow from becoming a republic, and why nobody should listen to the ARM.

With not a mention of the type of republic being offered, the point is missed.

The overriding question is whether the elite will permit the people to choose the head of state or keep that for themselves. The 1999 referendum failed on that very point.

We have three options:
* don't change
* have a republic where the Head of state (HoS) is chosen by the parliament /committee of eminent scholars, ex-pollies or whatever
* have a republic where the people choose the HoS.

The monarchists and some traditionalists want the first
Those who don't trust the people to make the right choice want the second.
Then there's the rest.

Had 1999 referendum been about allowing the people to make the choice, that referendum would have easily passed.

But instead Turnbull and the rest of the elite, distrusting the people as always, thought they could get away with the so-called minimalist approach which deprived the people of a role.

So a significant number of those who want the third option sided with the 'No' side on the basis that they'd wait for another day when their preferred option would be made available.

There's little point in talking about Republic v.Monarchy. Its like talking about painting or not painting the kitchen without discussing the proposed new colour.

The issue is what type of Republic being proposed. Only when it is one where the people choose the HoS will it come about.

Dear Mhaze,

You mentioned three options - but there is a fourth:

Have no HoS!

So long as you insist on having a HoS, I rather have him/her/it be as remote, disinterested, old and mute as possible:

How about a Galapagos tortoise?

Philip, the same outcome would have occurred in 1975 if Australia had had a president with the same powers as the Governor General, which would almost certainly have been the case.

What we need is an Australian monarchy. The queen earns billions each year for the UK, not just in tourism but also trade, when she visits other countries they fall over themselves to offer trade. Monarchs are treated like monarchs overseas, presidents, apart from the US, get nothing like the same treatment; Governors General are lucky to get a car to pick them up from the airport.

We should start a petition for Prince Harry to become an Australian citizen, marry Sophie Monk, and become our new king.

Dear Billyd,
The crucial point you make is president WITH THE SAME POWERS. The point I am making is that changing the identity of the head of state makes no sense UNLESS we change the powers, and I have set out in the Advancing Democracy model what those powers should be. The head of state should not be a bludger like the royals, but should be a worker like the rest of us. The proper job for an impartial head of state is to take over from the speaker in the House. Perhaps you should look at the Advancing Democracy model. It's about time we aimed for something better than any other country has on offer.

You gotta laugh at the rightards here who genuflect to queenie and her spawn, the biggest parasites in existence.
While happily putting the boot into so called bludgers on the dole and the pension.
I dont see dole recipients swanning round in chauffeur driven limos, living in palaces and attending any and all events, for free mind you, that are going.

Cant you fools see the discrepancy here?
What its ok if you steal millions from the public but expect whips and chains if its a few hundred.

Sheesh what morons.