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.