"[...] Changing the head of state of Australia to that of an Australian citizen - and perhaps at some point having a head of state who is not Anglo-Australian but rather Indigenous Australian, Greek-Australian, African-Australian or even of Asian-Australian origins, will go a long way to breaking down the insecurities that I myself have felt."

I simply don't see HOW this could change our Self-identity or anything else if the ingrained societal issues are always there.

Changing the head can only spell horror if for example we end up with a Kaysar Trad or Irfan for President.

Unfortunately we are not all born politicians - therefore we have not perfected the art of double-dealing and deceit. So we call it as we see it - while we still can.

But this is a very serious debate (republic) the outcome of which could be the final nail in the coffin of the once lucky country.

An extremely weak and obscure argument. How on earth can anybody assert with a staight face that what happened in Cronulla could have anything to do with us not being a republic? Iran, Indonesia and France are republics and what has that done for ethic minorities and marginalised peoples in those countries?

Fewtrell's article is yet another example of the self loathing, apologetic attitude that the left would have us take towards our heritage. Would Greeks or Indonesians or Japanese or Swedes 'demote' their heritage to make British feel more accepted? Vietnamese, Lebanese etc have every right to call Australia home and I for one am proud that Australia has been built on hard working immigrants wherever their origins are. But the only way to advance equality is to steadily integrate these people into society, not to take the course of affirmative action. As for a constitutional 'Bill of Rights' or similar we only have to look at the fierce divisions in American society to see that it is not a sollution.

The Republican debate is taking a battering at the moment because it is being hijacked by these ridiculous notions. If a republic were to be successful it would have to come without these great expectations that could well serve to marginalise the majority of Australians with an Anglo-Saxon background.

Even though the author is a wannbe republican, I accept that he is sincere in his beliefs that the problems mentioned could be solved by a republic - even though he ignores what goes on in existing republics. And, if I held the same views, I would vote for a repulic.

But I don't believe as he does, because I do take notice of events outside of Australia, and I am not as naive as the author.

There is no evidence whatsoever that a republic Australia would be any different from a monarchist Australia. Some people already regard us a "crowned" republic. The monarch has no say whatsovever in our affairs, and probably couldn't care less.

Until those of a republican inclination prove to all Australians that we will benefit from a change, the ARM and it's members will remain a joke.

As long as proponents of a republic fail to realise that the battle over it is one between the elite and the people, they will fail to secure passage of the necessary referendum, as the text of the Constitution can only be amended by the people.

I, for one, treasure many of the current provisions. Section 42, for instance gives me an ethics test, which is hard to find these days. The section provides that each member of Federal Parliament shall, before taking his or her seat, swear or affirm that they will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty.

When one of the committed, hard-core republicans in Parliament makes the oath, I can make a judgment as to whether he is being truthful, honest and sincere, or whether he is lying in his teeth.

The establishment of a republic would take all this away, and what would I get in return? Nothing.

People seriously interested in promoting a republic should look at the campaign to federate Australia. The successful compromise gave something to everyone, and different people from all sides of politics voted for it for different reasons.

My price for a republic would be Citizen Initiated Referendums, which is the other half of the Swiss provision we already have (the method of approving referendums). The whole point of such referendums is that it would be possible for the people to enact legislation in the teeth of the oppostion of the political elite.

If such a system were ever brought in, the first referendum would have to be one to bring back hanging.

The battle for a republic has been derailed by Howard successfully portraying republicans as elitists. He uses such arguments to devalue anyone he does not agree with.

I am of working class, British origin. To me, Howard and his like are the elitists.

A republic represents a step towards acknowledging that we in Australia are not Little Britain. We are not part of the old, crusty, elitist empire. We are no longer under the thumb of the British Upper Classes. We would be showing that we are a self confident, self determined nation, with our own destiny and our own flag, and our own ideas.

And yes, it would be a signal that Australia has many contributors, from many parts of the globe, not just Britain. And yes it would send a signal that we recognise those contributions, and welcome more of them.

And yes, that is why Howard, and the his fellow elitists who have contributed previous messages to this page feel so scared of it. They cannot imagine a different and better Australia. That is their misfortune.

There is a need for a Free and Independent Republic as soon as possible. One of your respondents fears we might select someone quite unsuitable as our Head of State. But at least it would be our mistake and most unlikely. Better still we could throw him/her out when we wished. Now we have no choice and must accept whomever is dished up to us. Charlie & Camilla Windsor is a case in point and we all know we would be a world laughing stock if this pair occupied the highest position in the Nation and moreover had the absolute right to veto each and every action by our democratically elected governments. The only way we can feel we are a real Nation and can all work together, is by becoming free of the colonial yoke

Terry Fewtrell does make some interesting points, but I think he is on the wrong track. What Terry Fewtrell and those who think like him such as Mark McKenna need to realise is that becoming a republic means winning a republic referendum. This is very hard at the best of times. Trying to hitch all manner of social justice objectives, including reconciliation, onto the republic will only ensure that the republic issue fails. What republicans need to do, if anything, is move slightly further to the RIGHT, not the left. No, I don't mean having citizens initiated referenda. And we don't need extreme right wing views such as advocacy of the death penalty (as one contributor apparently wants) attached to the republic. But we do need to aim the republican movement towards the mainstream of Australians who are of a British and Irish background (such as myself). Australians of other backgrounds are mostly going to vote Yes to a republic anyway. The brutal mathematics of a referendum means we cannot afford to alienate 'mainstream' Australia.
We need two simple messages about the republic issue: 1) It is nationalist. Not 'nationalist' in the old fashioned sense of being aggressive and jingoistic, but 'nationalist' in the sense of putting Australia first and not tolerating having a non-Australian as either 'head of state' or 'sovereign'. Having the Queen in the Constitution is inconsistent with Australian nationalism. 2) Republicanism is democratic. Republicans object to having Governor-General who is appointed and dismissed at the whim of the Prime Minister. Republicans object to having a person who is not elected either by Parliament or the people being able to sack the government (that means any government, whether Labor or Liberal). The Governor-General office is inconsistent with Australian democracy.
The republic is the solution to both of these issues. We will have an Australian as head of state. The head of state, the President, will be chosen in a democratic way.
We need to make sure the republic issue is only about the republic. The republic issue is only about Australian nationalism and democracy.

Articles on the Australian Rebublic are usually good for a chuckle or two, and this is no exception.

In fact, I have to entertain the possibility, on the evidence of this article, that the ARM is stacked with monarchist agents - spies who have been planted there over the years by the Flintstone brigade to make sure that it never, ever becomes a credible force.

Fewtrell has to be the monarchists Deep Cover. After a long, slow and undistinguished rise in the public service , he slips into a “government consultancy” before wheedling his way into the “leadership team”. Finally, he is in a position to produce drivel like this, with just enough dog-whistle words not to alarm his masters in the republican movement, but at the same time sufficiently monumentally empty-headed to put the whole movement back another decade. Perfect.

Let me state my position here. I can see absolutely no reason why Australia should not be a republic. There are many examples of ex-commonwealth countries achieving this in the right spirit, and with the right objectives, and all the while retaining the most cordial links with their history.

However, when the best the ARM can offer the Australian people is the tedious waffle in this article, it is time for them to sit down and shut up. There isn't a cogent reason to be found, just the bleating "isn't it a shame we can't all get along" and "wouldn't it be so much better if we could all be nice to each other" wrapped - badly - into some form of justification for electing "a mate" as president.

Where do these people come from? How do they get to “speak” on behalf of a movement that – again, on the evidence of this piece – they barely understand? Who pays them? What do they pay them? How do they justify paying them?

On the face of it, until we grow up, and can articulate some real, sensible and constructive reasons why we should become a republic, there can be only one conclusion: we don't deserve to become one.

I remind you all that the Australian National anthem uses these words:
"Then here he raised Old England's flag, the standard of the brave,With all her faults we love her still, Brittania rules the waves."
How on earth do you think the Australia born Greek, Italian or Irish would feel about that?
Keep your ethnicity by all means but do not expect others to change theirs to suit you. Do not use 'integration' when you mean domination.
If we are serious about nation building then we should all want to be Australians in a Republic and not subjects of an English Queen or God forbid King Charlie and his Camilla.

Anglos, you can continue to pay homage to Mother England.

Yorgo
Citizen of Australia

Middleman,

I think you completely misunderstood my reference to capital punishment in claiming I was in favour of it.

My whole point is that with citizens initiated referendums (which have been used in Switzerland for over 150 years, with little detrimental effect) an issue like this would be decided by the PEOPLE, not the ELITE.

It could be that you feel that the people have lost the confidence of the elite, and that the elite should dismiss the people, and elect another.

You also have either not read the Constitution, or do not understand it. The prime minister cannot dismiss the Governor-General, only the Queen can do that. Although she usually follows advice from the Prime Minister, she is not legally obliged to do so, and in an emergency could do something else. That is one of the beauties of our magnificent Constitution.

Again, If the Prime Minister is dismissed by the Governor-General, a general election MUST follow, as the new Prime Minister would be unable to obtain supply. This means that the people are given the task of resolving the political dispute, and if that's not democracy, I don't know what is.

I must admit that as an anti-authoritarian, I love to see Prime Ministers dismissed, and hope to see another before I die.

I see a need for this nation to move forward to a republic for one reason only, and that is to vote for a leader we can be proud of. The current political system is self defeating in that we get what we vote for - a politician - . By their very nature and job description their greatest asset is to tell lies with a straight face, because that is what they have to do to get elected and stay elected. NEVER admit a mistake. NEVER tell the truth if you think it may harm yours or your party future.
Our new President (be they Anglo - Ethnic - Indigenous) would be a squeaky clean person who has spent their life being honest and working for the community. Don't worry there are plenty out there, we just don't hear of them now because they do not necessarily hold a media profile because the work they do is not seen as newsworthy. The type of person I am thinking of could be someone with a lifetime in the medical field, or a Salvation Army General, or Noel Pearson Qld indigenous leader. I am sure we can find the right person out of the many hundreds that will qualify. But move forward we must to save us from the further PM appointed cronies waiting in the wings.

Plerdsus,
I would like to make a number of responses to your comments on my contribution.
First of all concerning capital punishment. In your first comment you registered your approval of citizen initiated referendums. You then said "If such a system were ever brought in, the first referendum would have to be one to bring back hanging". I think I was entitled to infer from that that you support the death penalty. However, I accept that you were saying your 'price' for accepting a republic was the introduction of citizens initiated referendums, not the death penalty.
Secondly, you claim that I have not read the Constitution or do not understand it. You are incorrect. I have read the Constitution many times and have studied Constitutional Law for my Bachelor of Laws degree. My reference to "a person who is not elected either by Parliament or the people" was a reference to the Governor-General, not a reference to the Prime Minister. I am perfectly aware that under section 64 of the Constitution, it is the Governor-General who sacks the Prime Minister, not the other way around. In fact, I am afraid it is you who does not understand the Constitution. If a Governor-General, who is unelected, decides to sack the Prime Minister (i.e. the government), there is no rule of law in the Constitution requiring an election to follow. There is no rule of law in the Constitution linking a Governor-General's power to dismiss the Prime Minister to an occasion when the government is unable to obtain supply. In fact, the biggest danger to democracy in Australia is the Governor-General. Under the Constitution, the Governor-General has a very wide range of powers, and it is only weak conventions that prevent him from using them. The Governor-General could in theory appoint a personal crony as Prime Minister and take over the government. On the other hand, the Governor-General office is also dangerously weak, because the Prime Minister has complete control of appointments. The Prime Minister is at liberty to appoint a political crony as Governor-General - as has already happened four times.

Some of these articles at OLO are aperient so I say 'thank you'.

This article suggests that Italians, Estonians, Greeks, Vietnamese and other ethnic groupings are silly people unable to read or comprehend. How else could they end up in Australia, which is a constitutional monarchy? Wouldn't they take the time to find out all they could about the country before they migrated. To now seek out their views about Australia becoming a republic is a bit rich. If they didn't care enough to arm themselves with knowledge of Australia before they came here why would they care now?

Yes those choice few verses from the National Anthem are being taken rather too literally by our Indonesian (& other) fisher-folk visiting the Top End. "...boundless...to share...across the seas..." etc.

Though they have been visiting here for some 700 years according to the archaological evidence.

Not this Republican window dressing, again. It will not change a single attribute of our lives for the better but it does run the risk of allowing some highly unreliable people to tinker with things that work.

What we do need is to revitalise federalism by adding the new states in the regions that were envisaged by most of the architects of our constitution. For example, the addition of just one extra state would make constitutional change by referendum much more practical by requiring a majority of 4 out of 7 states instead of the existing 4 out of 6.

And I don't mean the 197,000 residents of NT or ACT but, rather, new states formed by the 1.6 million residents of non-metropolitan NSW, the 1.3 million Queenslanders who do not live in the SE corner, or the 1.2 million residents of regional Victoria. They have all had a gutfull of metrotyranny and "city state politics" and all have more in common with folk just over their existing borders than those in "their" (sic) capital city.

And nothing would improve the quality of life of the urban public like the reduced population and growth pressure that such a reform would deliver. Think about that next time you spend the best hour of your day with your nose up a buses muffler.

Middleman,

I welcome this discussion of the Constitution, as not enough people have even the most elementary understanding of it, and it is very germane to the issue of a republic.

To answer you first point, that there is no rule of law requiring an election after the dismissal of a government, you are technically right but in practice wrong. The whole basis of the Westminster system of government is the provision of supply, that is the ability to spend money for the government to function. Section 83 of the constitution provides that no money can be drawn from Treasury except by appropriation made by law. Section 53 clearly provides that this law requires the assent of both houses, not just the lower house as in the UK and some states. As the new Prime Minister would be unable to obtain supply, not having a majority in the reps, an election must follow. In any future dismissal the Governor-General would very likely follow the precedent set by Kerr when an immediate election was one of the conditions under which Fraser was commissioned as PM.

Again, in theory, the GG could in theory commission you or me or any one of his mates to be Prime Minister. However we could not function as we would be unable to obtain supply for the same reasons.

To say that there are only weak conventions preventing the GG from misusing his powers, I would respond that the sanction of the government being totally unable to function is sufficient.

To say that the powers of the GG are so wide as to be a threat to democracy, and at the same time dangerously weak, is not very logical.

You are correct in stating that the power to dismiss is not confined to refusal of supply, and that the GG has a general power to dismiss for any reason at any time. However his continuance in office would depend on the prudent use of this power, which has only ever been used twice.

Sage, this cracked me up!

>>Some of these articles at OLO are aperient so I say 'thank you'.<<

The idea that articles on this forum can be "gently laxative" is not one that had occurred to me before, but it is, on reflection, blindingly apposite.

Thank you for the chuckle.

On a more serious note, plerdsus wrote:

>>The whole basis of the Westminster system of government is the provision of supply<<

This is simply not the case. The ability to block supply is not a feature of "the Westminster system", but is a power copied from the US Senate. Far from being "the whole basis", even the UK's House of Lords has not had that capability since 1911.

If we do become a Republic we need to ensure that the system of Governement returns to the people having the power and defining by the majority what we want our employees to do on our behalf, not politicians defining who is elected as President etc.
And most of all enshrine checks and balances into the system that politicians and the President can not change to ensure they have open slather to do as they want as it appears today they are continually doing and taking our rights away piece by piece under various guises.

If they can provide a system of government by the people and more so accountablity of politicians for their actions and ultimately provide a Govt based on the majority of peoples wishes I would vote for a republic, but until that comes to pass I would never vote for anything less, after all we hire our politicians to represent us the majority, yet nowdays it seems we hire politicians who ignore us the majority and do as they please. So much for democracy!

The ideal of 'responsible government' (almost an oxymoron) is becoming more blurry, due mainly to the two party abused system (censuring/voting along party lines to appease 'party' apparatchiks).

Human rights in Australia are way behind the pace in comparison to other Westminster/common law based systems today.

Yet the apologists for HM QEII, and the like, continue to crow about the Australian Constitution and its "...robust framework...
inherent protections from abuse by government..."

Like the anachronistic dinosaur it is, the poor thing should be quietly placed into a museum and laid to rest.

The electronic whorehouse should likewise take a good shot of purgative and clear out its ethics, if only to actually forget about readership/viewer ratings, and shareholder pressure, prersenting the truth for a change.

I think Australia should become a parliamentary republic and it is long overdue as is the need for a new flag (One that retains the southern cross as a symbol of our nations not one that has the commonwealth star)

HOWEVER..

I can not and will not support a direct election model.

We would have won the referendum and Australia a republic had the likes of Phil Cleary and others that advocated a "Direct Election" or else shown their commitment to Australia becoming a republic. (Phil Cleary lost support on that issue).

"Where there is no counsel the people fall but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety"

Power should remain in the hands of a democratically elected Parliament and our Head of State should be appointed on the vote of a statutory majority of a joint sitting of both houses (Senate and House of Representatives). The cost and politicisation of a directly elected president can not be warranted.

If the next referendum for Australia to become a Republic is designed to give wait to the Direct election option then I would campaign reluctantly to retain the Monarchy until such time as we are prepared to become a Parliamentary Republic with our Head of State appointed by our Parliament who in turn are elected by the people

More..
http://melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com

Dispite what some of the posters say above, the main point about Terry's article is how republicanism speaks to all Australians. He is reminding us of the great worth and relevance of the National Republican Lecture series.

The three lectures todate were:
Larissa Behrendt: http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/speeches&articles/spa_behrendt02November2005.htm

Huy Truong: http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/speeches&articles/archives/2004/spa_truong9November2004.htm

Richard Woolcott: http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/speeches&articles/archives/2003/spa_woolcott_27112003.htm

This series is worthy of praise and Terry is to be congratulated for his efforts in helping to organise such events. We should look forward to the next lecture later in 2006.