I agree entirely . I also have reservations regarding the ARM proposed method of selecting a head of state . However , it is presumably seen as a compromise which might attract more voters who are not convinced republicans . In 1999 , monarchists opposed the proposal to have a parliamentary appointment , saying that we should not trust politicians and we should not have a direct election of a head of state because that would lead to a pop star or similar being elected .

instead , we retain a system under which only the Prime Minister can nominate a person to the British monarch for Governor General , whom the monarch is conventionally obliged to appoint , though , if the Constitution is read literally , the monarch appoints in his absolute discretion .

Apart from the question of changing the Constitution , the immediate actions taken to rename public places and buildings after the deceased
and allegedly mourned monarch , without any public consulation , are reminiscient of a coconut colony .

Jaylex

Yep..Australia, the Republic of Bananas”, sounds appropriate: Or maybe the “Republic of Coconut Heaven “…mmm. The “Republic of Native Title”, led by the auspicious right Honourable Eddy O’Beid, from his office in Long Bay, or Hawks Nest, take your pick.

The “Republic of Carbon Tax”, they’ll be no Republic of Carbon Tax on my shift..Gillard.
Or, the “Republic of US outpost” , the “Republic of UN Meddling”, or the “Republic of Chinese Xenophobia”…Any port in a storm!, mmm, maybe the “ Republic of Any Port in a Storm”.

The Republic of Coles”…down down down we go, round and round we go, love’n that spin that we’re in, that old black magic called “Republic”…or better say, White Magic?

Dan

“Republic of Caligula Joe”…I vote for that one! That’s the one…bring on another war boys!

Dan.

This bloke immediately reveals himself as a 'Guardianista'. The Guardian tells him Charles 111 is "manifestly unsuitable" and he falls for it. He also fell for the belief that once the Queen went, Australians would be slobbering for a republic; the opposite has occurred.

The cult of the republic is the cult of mediocrity. Republicans want to dismantle a time-tested arrangement that works well and keeps us part of an international family of like-minded nations and to replace it with extended rule by our not spectacularly gifted politicians, and with a figurehead president who is either one of themselves or the kind of person who gets chosen as Australian of the Year.

As for this Australian head of state business: what is an Australian in these days or rampant and stupid multiculturalism. We need the Monarchy to retain any semblance of unity, just as the UK does.

It is not the Monarch, but the Monarchy, that is important.

The stability of the crown outstrips any alternative. Charles 111 has all his life been schooled in the Constitution responsibilities and he accepted the crown without any political campaigning.

Look who is calling for a Republic, primarily the Greens and immigrants who will not recognize a Christian institution. Site any non-Christian Republic that does not have oppressive laws denying freedom of ideas to be expressed.

The thing is about Charles is that he hasn't upset anyone. Gawd help us if insufferable ABC Q&A types end up being President or the leader of the indigenous parliament. Then we'll be lectured every week on our failings while they fly around in VIP jets dispensing wisdom. With Charles and Camilla it will be once in a blue moon to open a bridge or some such.

I think the Auditor General should work out how much the present vice regal system costs. Then legislation should be enacted to guarantee the presidential system is cheaper. If not stick with Charles.

It is great to have feedback, but if TTBN actually read the article first
-The Guardian annoys me severely, give me Spectator any day
-I don't want a so-named republic at all, just a local head of state
-I was totally unsurprised that ER's death made zero difference

Steve S

Anyone proposing constitutional change can be expected to be asked what do you want, and for what reason?

So... what is it?

You only want a local head of state, but not a republic. And the purpose would be ... what? And it would be done ... how? And, mere shallow jingoism apart, it would be better because.. what? And you know this ... how?

Josephus mentions immigrants. Most immigrants come from republics these days, and I don't think that they come here with the intention of changing our constitution. No, it's the hard left Australians who want to turn Australia into a republic. Immigrants come here knowing that we are a constitutional monarchy, and I bet that it is one of the attractions.

Rather than voting for an aboriginal position in parliament why don't they have a referendum for a republic with an indigenous head of state. Like a monarchy but the head of state chosen by the indigenous community That will give them recognition for their past grievances.

While I agree in principle, I see other issues with far higher priorities. Top of which is the cost of energy and simply getting by!

If you think elbow is timid on the republic? then he is quaking in his boots over doing anything real about reducing the cost of energy and all that then flows from that. I.e., everything else, food, manufactured goods, processing, value adding, transport, all service provision, supermarket checkout demands, rents and housing costs, as energy provision cost bites hard at all manner of supply!

Chiefly and Curtain would be turning in their graves, if they could see new labor, their priorities and political antics, now!

The Governor is the very model of a modern Major General. And the Government looks like Monty Pythons flying circus and, on its bike, peddling furiously away from making any momentous nation building, economy expanding decisions.

The opposition looks like the Keystone cops running around in ever decreasing circles and soon to disappear down its own fundamental orifice.

And led by an ineffectual Polly waffling buffoon interested only in political point scoring, rather than alternative nation building policies that are hammered home daily, that wedge labor.

God help my poor, buggered country!
Alan B.

Hospos, great idea, wish I'd thought of it. And it would solve so many issues, wouldn't it?
Alan B.

There is no reason to be quite so dramatic is there?
Certainly this is a situation which needs to be considered.
But, reason must beat emotion in this two horse race.
And for goodness sake, let us keep the entirety of the discussion in focus.

Personally, after experiencing the quite absurd over-reaction to the death of the queen, I think now might be a good time to stop and consider the matter.
Draw breath, and whilst doing so, assess our own reaction, and think carefully about the way ahead.
Some would say, 'if it ain't broke, it don't need fixin'.
But I think it is clear that there is a vocal group who do desire to break with the UK.
The present 'groundswell' of discontent is sufficient for the matter to be given careful consideration by others?
And whatever the majority decide, we must go with that.
We are, after all, a democracy.

Before we even think of a Republic the Government and any other interested parties should reduce to zero the incidence of Syphilis in the Northern Territory and the Torres Strait Islands among thhe Indigenous population.

It’s a serious health issue.

This clown, who ever he is, is dead wrong.

Ozzies are not too timid, but too smart to change from the best form of government yet devised, a Constitutional Monarchy, to become yet another tin pot republic.

Well I certainly hope they are.

I see 'royalty' as being paid employees of the people.
They are not supernatural beings.
There is no quality about them that is not possessed by others.
They are merely persons appointed to do a job.
A job that some of them do very well.

But many see them as otherwise.
They treat them as if they are somehow 'special' or 'different'.
The fact is that they are not.
Playing 'dress-ups', and parading around, is just irrelevant pomp.
This excessive use of smoke and mirrors shouldn't fool anybody.

However, if we have employed them to do a job, we should let them do it.
But also keep in mind that it is the people who decide, collectively, whether or not they should continue.

hi

Sir Humphrey Appleby and the Rt Hon Stephen Saunders MP would have been worthy adversaries. An intrigue-infected intellectual inertia motivates the former and the latter represents the interment of inovative initiative.

ISTM, that what is best for Australia is the prime issue before us.

(a) What advantages, if any, accrue by the change to a republican form of government?

(b) Are they worth the costs and losses, if any, suffered by said change in (a) and rejection of a constitutional monarchy?

Individuals from the lowliest status to the highest in the nation must receive equal consideration in access to information to ensure a vote that is as informed as reason advises.

The fact that Australia is assuming a new role in the South-East Asian region will impact many individual considerations. Forward bases for a fleet of nuclear submarines really worries me at times even though that prospect is 30 years hence. Political effervescence in PNG and the Bismarck Archipelago - Would a republic be in a better position to exert influence?

Australia is not too timid to ditch the monarchy, they just don't want to.

The polls make this clear.

Australians will have to decide
If a well trained king they can abide
A commando king trained by the best
A military man who won't settle for less
A king we really can't compare
When a leaky pen is able to ensnare.

>"(a) What advantages, if any, accrue by the change to a republican form of government?"

You will notice that that is exactly what the republicans cannot and do not answer. They simply enter the discussion having assumed that everyone else is as hateful and muddled and eager to destroy our traditions and culture as they are.

One of the real motivators is that are still fouling their pants over Whitlam having been dismissed in 1975. Whitlam was trying to govern by mere executive fiat without consent of Parliament, which is exactly the reason why Charles I got this head cut off in the first place. The Queen and her viceroy acted entirely correctly in referring the constitution crisis caused by Whitlam's abusive lust for power, to the will of the people who settled it by getting rid of him. Dismissal was the least of it: a flogging followed by dismissal would have been more to the point.

The one constant underlying the republican cause is that they share Whitlam's attitude. They couldn't care less about the people - that is only their cover. It's about power, that is all. They just wish that they were king.

The people now telling us they want an Australian are the same ones who have been telling us since Whitlam how dreadful it is to discriminate against non-Australians.

The only make fools of themselves pretending they don't know about Australia's British history and heritage.

Cumberland,
Not only that but they will waste billions trying to achieve their aims.
Money that could be spent on other things, such as flood mitigation.

I wonder if, having wasted the money will they give a damn about the homeless who may die in winter or the struggling mother trying to feed her kids on an inadequate income or the people killed on bad roads because of cutbacks on spending?

Australians all we can't rejoice
For we're not one and free
We need to break the ties we have
With the British monarchy

We need to stand on our own two feet
And not continue to repeat
The falsehoods of the past
We need to tell the historic truth
And make sure that it lasts

Only stupid people think that we are not "free", or "not standing on our own two feet", because of our constitution.

We didn't create the Monarchy, we inherited it.
It was relevant for Australia when Australia was an 'outpost' of the British Empire.
But now Australia stands well and truly on its own two feet.
We have already cut many legal ties with the UK.
Time to create our own 'head of state' with appropriate constitutional duties?
A simple and straight forward adjustment.

Cumberland,

If you truly believe that the Constitution does not
have racist clauses in it then you don't know it very well.
Or our history that still remains with us to this day.

"Waleed Aly has sparked debate with his co-hosts on The Project by calling for an Indigenous elder to replace Queen Elizabeth II as Australia's head of state."

What do aboriginal leaders know about Australian Constitution and English Culture? They want to remove anything English from their lands. There were over 250 tribal groups in australia before settlement who were not one national unity holding recognized title to land. Who's elder do you call upon to represent the Nation?

Our constitution allows federal laws to be made for
a particular race of people which is a relic of
Australia's past and is potentially dangerous.

The Race Power law in section 51 (xxvi) of the
constitution gives parliament the power to make laws for
"the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to
make special laws."

I'm not a constitutional expert but there are other relics
that need to be removed that should no longer apply.
Having an indigenous qualified person as our head-of-state
is as good an idea - and why not? Unless you assume
none are qualified for the job because they are indigenous?

There are many qualified indigenous people that come to mind.
All you have to do is Google them.

Foxy,
The clause relating to race could be one of the most beneficial one in the Constitution, just suppose that we had good reason to exclude a race, such as heaith; we’d be fools to give up the power to do so.

Is Mise,

So which race should we exclude based on their health?

Or are only the white races healthy in your opinion?

Smacks a bit of white supremacy to me.

After all didn't the colonists bring with them all sorts
of diseases that were inflicted on the native population?
Perhaps the colonists should have stayed away?

ABORIGINAL ANTI MONARCHY PROTESTERS SHRED, BLOOD AND BURN AUSTRALIAN FLAG

On National Day of Mourning for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Australian Associated Press via Canberra Times, Launceston Examiner, Northwest Star and many other papers report September 22 2022
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7915082/protesters-demand-monarchy-be-abolished/

"Protesters demand monarchy be abolished"

The Australian flag has been covered in blood and burned at a series of anti-monarchy rallies across the country.

Protesters at Melbourne's Birrarung Marr cut up the flag and covered it in fake blood, while chanting "abolish the monarchy" in confronting scenes.

Greens senator Lidia Thorpe ["a proud DjabWurrung Gunnai Gunditjmara woman"] led hundreds of protesters of all ages and backgrounds taking a stand against colonisation on the Queen's National Day of Mourning.

"The Crown's boot is on our neck and we're sick of it," Senator Thorpe told the rally.

"Do you know we have over 20,000 Aboriginal children who have been stolen in 2022? And you want to mourn the coloniser who brought the pain and the genocide and the murders here to our people. Shame!"

The crowd then sat at the intersection of Flinders and Swanston streets while clutching Aboriginal flags and anti-monarchy signs, before marching to state parliament.

Senator Thorpe decried countless atrocities and human rights violations against First Nations people, and the high incarceration rates among Indigenous youths.

"While everyone mourns the Queen, we have 10-year-old babies trying to take their lives in Don Dale prison. We have to shut the child prisons down," she said.

In 2007, Indigenous youths accounted for 59 per cent of the total juvenile detention population, according to government records.

Last year, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners made up 30 per cent of all prisoners.

The protests come amid calls for the Victorian government to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to at least 14.

The Melbourne rally was one of multiple protests in Australia on Thursday.

...Activist groups Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance (WAR) and Fighting In Solidarity Towards Treaties are among those organising the demonstrations..."

MORE SEE http://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7915082/protesters-demand-monarchy-be-abolished/

Foxy

You're in favour of racism, remember?

You're the one pushing for nationalist chauvinism, remember?

And I know the Constitution better than you do.

The monarchy is part of our historic truth.

Not a monarchist, but..... many on the fossil fueled nativist libertarian right in media and/or Tory politics, are already making noises about the need to have Charles refrain from making pro-environmental and anti-fossil. fuel statements.

Recently this was evidenced by an 'environmental NGO', maybe Population Matters UK, trying to persuade Charles that (immigrant led) population growth is the 'environment' issue; 'nativist libertarian trap'.

Cumberland,

I am not anti monarchy. I am pro Australian.
And I am not pushing for anything. I am one
person on a discussion forum expressing an
opinion and as I've stated it will be the Australian
people who will finally decide in which direction
the nation is going to go. Stop name calling and
sloganeering. Those arguments don't carry much
intellectual weight and are a sign of mental laziness.
Express your opinions - honestly without trying to
insult others. Otherwise they will respond in kind.

BTW: i'm awesome!

shadowminister,

" The monarch is part of our historic truth."

Well said.