I believe you're asking the wrong question. Rather:

Can the monarchist movement justify the continued expenditure on royal visits, the continued presence of a foreign country's flag in the corner of our flag, the continued fiction that an overseas resident is our head of state.

AMSADL's post just further demonstrates Nick's point.

The system we have at the moment, although not perfect, works. It defines the 4 levels of government, the Monarch/Governor General, the Executive, the Parliament, and the Judiciary.

The Australia Act (1986) clearly states that the Monarch can only exercise there powers whilst physically in Australia - as is the case now. Otherwise those powers are vested in the Governor General.

The Union Jack in the cornor of the flag is a mere token, just as a bannana in the cornor would be a token. It doesn't change how we live or what it is to be an Australian. Neither does the relative pittance it costs the tax payers for the odd royal visit every decade or so. I'd be more concerned about the cost of "Fact Finding Missions" that politicians indulge themselves in, or the cost of maintaining Jet Fighters over Canberra when George W. comes visiting.

Dispite my agreement with Nick's statement that the drafters of our Constitution were great men, they were of their day. Much of our Constitution contains the phrase "until the Parliament otherwise provides...." Over the last 105 years the Parliament has determined these provisions, so the Constitution needs updating and revision.

"Written rules are almost meaningless without a culture dedicated to their observance and compliance with them.”

Exactly. Republicans may have had something to offer Australians, when we were a virtually homogenous culture – i.e. Anglo/Saxon and like-minded West Europeans with just a small minority of others who quietly fitted in and didn’t create the divisions we have today. There was talk of republicanism as soon as the first ‘currency lads’ could articulate it.

But, unlike America, we missed the boat. That country’s immigrants arrived in a well-established republic, where being American meant something. Our ‘late onset’, enforced multiculturalism has created tribes of people who have nothing in common with the host population or each other. The apologists for Third World immigration claim that newcomers will eventually meld with the host population; that they want the same things as we do: jobs, housing, freedom etc. Everyone wants these things, but they have nothing to do with culture. These people don’t share the same memories and culture. Our culture is ingrained. So is their culture, and never the twain shall meet. The fact that multicultural dogma insists that people retain their different cultures helps ensure that the divide will always be there.

Immigration from non-traditional countries appears set to continue, and we have increasing numbers of people who want something from Australia, but it is not what we want.

Our freedom and way of life is based on the best system in the world. We can resist the unnecessary changes constantly harped on by ‘progressives’ (who will never give up) or we can give in. Giving in would be easier, but we would then merely be living out the rest of our lives accepting that our culture would diminish to the point of being irrelevant. Barbarians would fill the gap

Nick,

This is a very selective reading of Senator Allison's article and the republican movement in general. She gives three reasons for why the 1999 republic failed: "insidious tactics employed by the Prime Minister, the campaign of disinformation waged by monarchists, and the stubborn disagreement that existed among republicans"

You forgot to read the last bit. If you had done so, then you would have been forced to write something completely different. Clearly, republicans do want a better system of government. You pretend that they don't, which is very convenient, saving you from addressing any of the specific points the Senator raised.

What is most telling is your "democracy demands" counter-argument. Is this some sort of criticism against using personification in an essay? Do you not understand this sort of language device, as it seems to be your main criticism. – democracy is our servant!

Wait, that’s personification too.

So democracy is our servant, but it cannot demand that we elect our head of state, because then it would not be our servant but our master, and democracy would rule over us, which is no good, so we should not mess with "the mechanisms that make society work" ... also proving that 0 = 1 and walking on two legs was a big, big mistake.

Senator Allison goes on to ask some rhetorical questions about male primogeniture and why, as a democrat, she is not cool with it, but clearly offended by all these literary flourishes, these points are not canvassed at all. Coincidence or silk stocking?

Then at last we have the dog whistle. I didn’t hear it, but that’s cause I’m not a dog. (thanks Leigh for barking)

In 1999 I was a republican at heart, and tend to remain so however have plenty of reservations. Lyn Allison's reasons for the failure at that time are back the front and hugely different in importance. She firstly blames John Howard. That's crap. If the reasoning put forward by the leaders of the Republicam movement were adequately pursuasive we would have overrode his objections easily. Same with the "campaign of dis-information waged by the monarchists". We would have seen through that if effective arguements had been out forward by the Republicans. The killer was the inability of the Republican movement to come up with a cohesive scenario on how the country should be managed, what were the benefits for us all and how the quality of life in Australia would safeguarded after tossing out a system that has worked as good as any country in the world enjoys.
As far as I can see, 7 years down the track, there is still no progress on that horizon. Until I can be pursuaded that there is a guaranteed option on the table that incorporates vision, is risk free and benefits the overwhelming majority then I'm with Nick.

Excellent article Nick, I can only agree with everything you say. If any posters think that words have any meaning ourtside the culture, I can only suggest they read the Soviet Constitution of 1936, which is available here:

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons01.html

The only way that John Howard ensured the failure of the republican referendum was to insist that the Convention agree on a model. This is where we differ from the Americans, who got rid of the crown in 1776, and then had to go through two constitutions and a civil war before they got their system right. Certainly their current constitution is one of the great cultural achievements of western man, because it was the first of its type, and many others, including us, have modelled significant parts of their system on it. Rather then just bagging the Queen, which I am sure is counter-productive, republicans should be proposing exactly what system they would replace her with.

Our Constitution, which is the fourth oldest in the world, is, I believe, the only one where the text can only be changed by the people. The history of referendums shows that the people have rightly been very wary of proposals to change it. Long may that continue.

Yes, without a monarch, and a Governor-General, we won't have elected governments sacked on the whim of the Governor-General. If we have a popularly elected President, at least we get to have a say about who is the head of State.

After 200 years other Commonwealth nations for example Canada, have grown up, and cut the apron strings from Mummy England, and matured to be a self governing nation, it seems Australia, wants to remain childlike forever, and never grow up and take responsibility for herself.

Perhaps this is why we continue to be told what we should do, and when we should do it, take our new role in the Iran War for example that the Yank Secretary of State, is telling Johhny Bonsai right now, what we will and won't do.....

SHONGA, what galaxy do you live in? According to the very latest information I have at hand, Canada remains a constitutional monarchy, with the Queen as head of state.

Just a few months back, the British Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, one Lord Falconer of Thoroton, came out by himself and dismissed suggestions that the British Government abolish primogeniture in succession to the throne. .... i.e. the underlying principle of succession in Britain where male heirs will always take precedence over female heirs.

This decision has an impact on the rules determining Australia's head of state and was made in Britain by a British politician. Was there any consultation with Australia? Of course not.

This decision underscores the absurdity of Australia's continuing links to the British monarchy. Absurd in that we have no say and absurd when you consider our Sex Discrimination Act has for the past twenty years outlawed such blatant gender discrimination.

The answer, Keiran, if the line of succession bothers you, is to encourage our Prime Minister to talk to the other PMs - rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater...

Nick, I fully agree. Well said.

“The argument fails because it cannot be crystallised into a better system of government than we have now. By that, I mean that the republican movement cannot articulate how any of us will be freer, wealthier, more committed to each other, more patriotic.”

Absolutely.

“I am absolutely convinced that the single most important ingredient in a system of laws and government is culture. Written rules are almost meaningless without a culture dedicated to their observance and compliance with them.”

Yes. Leigh makes some pertinent points. How would a republic improve the less culturally defined and less law-abiding path that we are heading down?

We urgently need major reforms in our governmental system. If the democrats (or anyone) really wanted to keep the bastards honest and call for real democracy and meaningful reforms, they would very loudly be lobbying against things like compulsory preferential voting, the intimate link between government and big business at all levels, the short-term nature of political decision-making, the worship of continuous economic growth …and for things such as sustainability being treated with the highest priority, true representation of the people, via referenda on just about anything of significance for example, etc, etc

This hoo haa about a monarchical head of state vs a republic was and still is a total distraction to what really matters.

I keep hearing about the strength of our Democracy... It is being eroded on a daily basis by our politicians and it has been for years. They keep telling everyone we have a strong democracy and people swallow it hook line and sinker.

The way this Govt is operating things you'd better watch him as the biggest threat to democracy. If Govts are continually allowed to stack committees and boards with their people then our democracy is in a dangerous place. Has a Govt got the ability to put it's people on the benches of the high court, other courts, Royal Commissions and Enquiries?

Of course Labor are no better and that is why we really do need a far stronger third party option than we have now. The inmates have taken over the assylum! We need to strengthen our laws to protect us from the pollies or at least enforce a few.

Read what was said at the Cole commission today .... Read the accusations by the QC's. Can we trust anything anymore?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1594202.htm

If witnesses are being instructed not to give full and honest answers at an enquiry like the Cole commission by their employers or anyone else then isn't that illegal under Australian Law? Doesn't perjury exist as a crime any more? Doesn't interfering with a witness or attempting to pervert the cause of justice exist any more? Isn't withholding evidence still a charge?

I don't care whether a person is Liberal, Labor or Kallathumpian noone should have the right to order a person on what evidence they should provide. If what is alleged in this article is truly happening then our entire system is on the brink.. Yep even our wonderful Monarchical system that many crow about!

Nick, Joe K - agreed. Anyone who wishes to have a republic needs to show how the population at large will benefit from such a change, and how their preferred model will achieve this. I have never seen any convincing arguments as to how we will be better off, nor clarity on issues such as how, if there is a popularly-elected president (which will mean candidates backed by political parties) as well as a PM heading an elected party, power struggles will be averted.

With all the Negative forces trying to feed off a once vibrant and healthy Nation- well it use to be .We need not figure out "What" the the future holds,(It has been stolen)With that in mind, on our currant course: Not Good:
And, how did we get here?

That Universalism and a specific word, “Umbilical chord” of Pantheism- Universalisms of One World altruism and all that pathological diatribe.
Western Civilizations and success is not a divine right, it was a code of ethics and a forged consequence of Individualism and its contribution. It is now contaminated with antitheist intent and ineptitudes with malicious and or total ignorant intentions.
It is, in the end for Western Nations Annihilation at the hands of our own Death Drivers: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5288&search=the
Never fear, once it is gone, then the bad old days of property rights by the gun come back. Have a nice day.

Nick says, "The [republican] argument fails because it CANNOT be crystallised into a better system of government than we have now." His "point is that Australian society drew upon a rich culture of lawful co-existence from Great Britain."

In other words, he has NO CONFIDENCE in Australia; that we CANNOT run our own affairs, even though most others can. Perhaps there are people like Nick in our corporate boardrooms and governments, saying it "No, it wont work" and helping to stamp out Australian innovation and progess.

So the #1 benefit of a republic is that people like Nick will wake up to Australia's potential and their lack of confidence shown to be baseless.

PLERDSUS,
Apology, on Canada, I was really under the mistaken assumption they had grown up and were able to cut the apron strings from old mother england, I do apologise sincerely. It would seem that a few babies still exist.
Regards, Shaun

Alexander Drake thinks he has the answer for Keiran.

He says rather than throw out this infantile belief system we should get our "King" Johnny (what a champ) to spray a dose of democracy in the direction of the British monarchy. Now many members of Parliament who support the monarch would have a moral dilemma over this suggestion and particularly "King" Johnny. Even though they have been elected by people who live in their constituency and there-in rests their first allegiance they have in fact in their little childlike minds an absolute allegiance to the British monarchy. In fact their "line of succession" reads simply as a need to create monarchs second to their need to create gods.

Monarchs and teddies (i.e. fantasy gods) don't do democracy for obvious reasons.

Philo says the Australian constitution "is the fourth oldest in the world."

The following is a list of the oldest codified national constitutions of the world that remain effective today: San Marino - 1600; United States - 1789; Argentina - 1853; Canada - 1867; Denmark - 1849; Netherlands - 1815; Norway - 1814; Tonga - 1875; Belgium - 1831; Luxembourg - 1868; Switzerland - 1874. Maybe there are more, but my reference is wikipedia and http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2063.html.

Let's see if Philo has the integrity to apologise in the same way as Shonga did. But, I doubt it - we'll probably get even more misinformation. Remember the lies about Australia having to leave the Commonwealth?

Rather than defend the monarchial system with honesty, status quo supporters continue to give Austalian's reasons not to believe them. I wish they could just put Australia's interests first.

For the record, under an Australian republic:
1. our constitution will still be over 100 years old
2. the constitution will remain the bedrock of our democratic society
3. we will continue to be part of the Commonwealth of Nations
4. we will continue to have close ties with the United Kingdom and the Queen (our current Head of State) will always be welcome
5. coins with the Queen's profile will remain in circulation.

The above post was directed to Plerdsus, not Philo. Somehow I got them mixed up.

Apologies to Philo.

One day Australia will become a republic but we will need a much better deal than we were presented with the last time.
The pro republicans talked down to us as if we were a retarded bunch of hicks they were dealing with.
Their offer was a take it or leave it option , we left it.
At present the Western countries with monarchies are the most stable in this unstable world, though they are under threat from a bad immigration .
When the time is ripe, we will seek a republic, it is not time now.

So, according to Nick Ferrett, God's in his heaven and all's right in the world. His argument is the same old "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Sorry, but if the Australian Constitution was the best that Sir Samuel Griffith "the greatest lawyer and nation-builder in our history" could come up with, then he was asleep on the job. It has all the poetry of a VB Commodore workshop manual, the inspiration of a Kim Beazley speech or the majesty of a pre-fab temporary classroom at the local primary school. Don't believe me? Try reading the wretched thing: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/ See, a lame dismal crock. Rights? Freedom of speech ? Implied. Freedom of Religion? Implied. Implied is barrister-speak for "It's not actually there, we're just pretending it might have been if the idiots who'd drafted it had realized that our rights needed protecting." I don't much care who our figurehead of state is but don't insult my intelligence by proclaiming, like Dr Pangloss, that "everything is for the best, in this the best of all possible worlds." Incidentally check Slashdot, http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/17/1343225 the pathetic state of our rights is now on display for all the world to see.

Johnj you seem to be completely missing the point.

Nick is not saying that there aren’t a myriad problems with the current system, he is saying that the republican model offers nothing better – A view supported by the vast majority of respondents so far.

Try reading his article!

David Latimer,
This my first post on this thread and I note my name being used in vain. Thanks for the apology.

I like all Westminster Constitution posters here are wondering what this brave new world of Republicanism offers us? You keep talking about its benifits. What new bells and whistles will we have not yet realised in the distribution of power?

We have Republicanism happening by stealth removing peoples attention from the sovereignty of the Crown (representing the people) to fickle elected representatives to rule over us. We have politicians swearing allegiance to the people (What people? What political idiology if not Westminster?). They act not in an endeavour to serve but to manipulate and lord over.

Many politicians have effectively in their mind removed the crown. So they no longer serve under the Westminster system but whatever the whims of the Parliament. The altruism is dead the fickle is here as they remove the Queen and what she stands for.

It sounds like the new graduate on the boardroom floor trying to imprsee the old hands with his unproven model when they have a perfectly working model. Tell us the benifits!! Tell us what we are going to achieve! Give us the bottom line! You have hundreds of Republics in the World; please tell us how their model are better than Australia?

D L Quote, "Perhaps there are people like Nick in our corporate boardrooms and governments, saying it "No, it wont work" and helping to stamp out Australian innovation and progess...So the #1 benefit of a republic is that people like Nick will wake up to Australia's potential and their lack of confidence shown to be baseless"

I can only see the immature attitudes of Republicans here and am sure they are led by emotion and not a mature understanding of how power is balanced under our present Constitution; and how it will be better under a Republic.

"Republic" is a French word with similar meaning to the English word "Commonwealth". One meaning 'power of the people', and the other meaning 'the shared power of the people'.

Ludwig, having re-read the article, I don't believe I have missed the point. I disagree with the tenor of the article which argues our current system of government as the best available. Ferrett does NOT say "there aren’t myriad problems" he says "There is no point in changing a system of government which has delivered a safe, civil, liberal society but there is great danger in doing so." and also that we should retain a "system of government which has served us well and kept us free." I repeat that our constitution does not explicitly protect any rights except the right to vote. Freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion are all subject to attack. Governments of all colours are restricting access to information (on the grounds of either "security" or 'commercial-in-confidence') and accountability is going down the gurgler. When was the last time a minister (state or federal) took responsibility for a departmental stuff-up and resigned? They hang on and say "nobody told me". I agree with you that the simple substitution of an Australian head of state won't solve these problems and that much more fundamental reform is needed. But if we listen to people like Ferret, then nothing will change.

Two things:

David Latimer, yes, the Constitution will change in a republic, because we must remove the position of govenor-general (and the Govenors) and his constitutional powers. We can either give them to a president, who will be either partisan or populist, and therefore unable to do his duty, or we can abolish them and loose our important safety-valve. Remember, those powers were excerted twice. The first was to remove Lang in New South Wales when he was about to default on loans to England which would have broke the agreed deal between the States and the Commonwealth, scuttled our nation's links to England - making us unable to sell products to and obtain credit from them, caused renagade states to form (as threatened in the Riverina), caused Western Australia to follow through with its threats to leave the Commonwealth and return to England (as they once voted to do), and maybe brought civil war to Sydney's streets with the New Guard. The second time was when Whitlam was sacked, unable to pass supply and wanting to put us into billions of dollars of foreign debt (again, breaking a deal between the States and Commonwealth on borrowing) to some shady characters. Both of these governments, when sacked, were defeated at the subsequent election, and the people were the better for it. Why, when it has this excellent track-record of protecting our nation, and stopped us twice from becoming a basket-case, would one ditch our Constitution and its protector in the Monarch?

Second thing:

SHONGA, not only does Canada still have our Queen as their head of state, but it also has an unelected Senate. Its senate is chosen by the Govenor-General from recommendations of the Prime Minister. It's strange: we're embarassed that we still have an Englishwoman as our Head of State, probably because the Americans can claim to be able to choose their own. Meanwhile, Canada - observing the real dangers of presidential power to their south, with populism and divisiveness symbolising their nation, not only in the United States, but also in the South Americans republics - is more than willing to keep the tradition of stability, decency in rule, and humility that tends to win out in Westminster system of consitutional monarchy compared to the cults of personality that bloom stronger in republics.

This is the question people need to answer: Do all those who hate Howard passionately and also want a republic want to have someone as popular as Howard as our Head of State, rather than our Queen

DFXK,
dO YOU THINK THIS IS WHY aUSTRALIA WAS JUST SHORT ON BECOMING A REPUBLIC? Because of George.Dubbya? I admit if this is so I can understand. Whay a bloke to be in charge of the largest stock of WMD's on Earth, a bloke you can't string a sentence together. I can see the point there.

I would like to think the ordinary Aussie would have more sense than to elect a lunatic, or someonr who would do them harm, but realisticly they have elected Johnny Bonsai, so I would have to agree.

Response to Philo:

Thanks for accepting my apologies. Again sorry. I felt like Dick Cheney.

You ask about the benefits, which is the most important question and sometimes republicans stumble on it, perhaps do the different proposals having different benefits.

BENEFITS

#1 Australia obtains a self-contained, independent system of government - a practical benefit

#2 Sovereignty is held in the people - this matters to some than others, but does matter.

#3 Our constitutional system becomes consistent with Australia's status as an independent, sovereign nation - our constitution will be accurate.

#4 Some dead constitutional provisions, eg section 59 and 74, become legally dead - we could do this without becoming a republic, but removing them makes most sense in transition to a republic

#5 Some republican proposals restate or reform the relationship between the governor-general and ministers - there is debate about how far to go, meanwhile governments take advantage eg dilution of ministerial responsibility.

#6 We need institutions that foster stability. Monarchists suggest that the Queen is such a force, but the existence of the republican movement is evidence that she is not. Public sentiment is critical here. The Queen is not just above politics, but almost entirely outside Australian reflection.

#7 Governors and Governors-General are critical in developing civil society (our community organisations). In practice they are our leading community workers, but legally and in terms of public perception they are not. A republic would turn this around.

#8 Republicanism is good for Australian business, tourism and culture. We cannot mount a delegation to head overseas except through our political leadership or public service (eg Austrade), which is not even the Queen's position with respect to the UK. An Australian Head of State would be an Ambassador for Australian business, culture, tourism and goodwill-in-general.

#9 Some republican proposals focus on restoring governmental integrity, eg Prof John Power’s constitutional council. We could be cynical, but a mature approach takes each proposal on its merits.

Word limit reached, but republicans are thinking first and foremost about a better constitutional system.

See past article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3703

See my model: http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/intro/safe.html

The Queen, how does she impinge on our society, do any of our 'informed' know?
Yes there are things which require the Royal signature but rarely has this been denied. Yes ultimately in theory the queen could dismiss our leader, on advice.
However we praise ourselves as a concerned honest society, intelligently interested in the actions of government as they affect the society? Or is it the person, his bank balance?
Yet when it comes to international affairs, foreign policy, we make less use of democracy, in the end beholden to the Queen or not.
Consider the reaction to the Iraq war. A sizeable minority apposed based variously on prejudice and self informed opinion contrary to the propaganda the media as truth revealed by the leaders. Few seemed to worry whether we were told accurately or not. So it is with the Queen?
Subsequently several sources of government origin have revealed that leaders were instigating a scam a sort of Enron in the field of foreign affairs. The Rycroft memo, the record of a Blair cabinet meeting in July 2001 reveals that Saddam was not thought to be a threat did not possess effective WMD’s, see the later statement of Wolfovitz of America, but was seen as necessary to American needs. The Rycroft memo was only leaked in May 2005 but other material could be found suggestive of such a scam being in progress not least the conflicting revelations of the time to say nothing of the obvious hype.
The point of all this is that if as a democratic country we the people cannot be bothered to keep ourselves informed of events, showing approval by expressing an uniformed patriotism, how will altering the head of state improve our lot? We say we abide by Christian values,by international law but in the event prove to be hypocrites, emotionally driven. So is the move for change merely the actions of some who see some profit in change for the sake of change? If we are worried about mummy’s apron strings these would seem to be not the Queens but George Bush’s.

Watching the last two Presidential elections in the US persuaded me that we do not want that type of foolery here.
Money and influence got the present incumbent into the White House, talent or experience never entered the equation.
With our elections, we generally have had experience on how the nominees have performed and if we pick the best of a bad bunch at least we are not lumbered by the worst.
As in shown in America and as shown in Australia.

Johnj, I share your concerns.

Nick writes; “Its mechanisms are there to ensure that our society works, not to serve a short-sighted prejudice. There is no point in changing a system of government which has delivered a safe, civil, liberal society but there is great danger in doing so.”

The trouble is, the current system is full of the most appalling short-sighted prejudice, to the extent of gravely endangering the very fabric of our society, with its highly anti-sustainability momentum. Obviously, there is all the point in the world in changing this system. But there is no indication that a republic, especially one with the likes of Malcolm Turnbull in any position of power, would in any way change it for the better.

John, you write: “I repeat that our constitution does not explicitly protect any rights except the right to vote.”

Yes, but it does not protect the basic right of having our vote count where we want it to count, which makes a complete mockery of the right to vote and of democracy itself! Hence my repeated vehement criticism of compulsory preferential voting on OLO.

I would have hoped that the Australian Democrats or the Greens would have been the forces to bring about, or at least strongly lobby for, these sorts of changes. But alas, Andrew Bartlett (and by extension, the Democrats) has shown himself on OLO to be nothing more than a third pea in the pod of anti-sustainability future-destroying mongrels. Perhaps even more depressing; Bob Brown and the Greens have maintained a narrow focus, which has not had a great deal to do with sustainability or the governmental changes that we have to have.

The republican movement is devoid of effective reforms or anything that appeals to the populace. So this leaves us with an empty bucket.

If only people like Ian Lowe, Tim Flannery, Clive Hamilton or Frank Fenner could become our national leaders.

Sorry about my confronting statement; “Try reading his article”. It was unnecessary. I should have exercised more tact.

Ludwig,
What do you mean by this statement in reference to maintaining our right to vote?

Quote: "Yes, but it does not protect the basic right of having our vote count where we want it to count, which makes a complete mockery of the right to vote and of democracy itself! Hence my repeated vehement criticism of compulsory preferential voting on OLO."

What nonsense! Preferential voting is the only way you can ultimately make your vote count according to what you prefer. To follow the "How To Vote" by Party lines by placing "1" in one box denies you choice and the Party distribute your preferences. By numbering all boxes in sequence of your own preferences gives you absolute choice and the Party cannot change that. Compulsory preferential is the only way you get the majority of opinion of the whole electorate on their first choice of Candidate. First past the post is a fraud: eg

A = 10 votes
B = 20 votes
C = 30 votes
D = 40 votes

In that example D should be elected; but A + B + C = 60 votes. They each placed D last in their preferences. Who best represents the will of the electorate? C with 60 preference votes or D with 40 votes?

That you did not get your Candidate elected because you voted D is not a mockery of democracy. It is the will of Democracy. It is a process of elimination of candidates with less preferences. If C had two invalid votes and preferences flowed to B before C then this could be contested even though B received the most second preferences with 58 votes

Philo, I am pleased that you raise this matter.

There is all the difference in the world between optional and compulsory preferential voting. Optional preferential voting, where you number only the squares that you wish to number, is fully democratic.

Compulsory preferential voting, in which you are forced to number every square, and thus have your preferences filter down until they count for one of the two major candidates / parties, is totally antidemocratic. For example, if you wish to vote for an independent or minor party and you put Labor and Liberal last and second last, in the vast majority of cases your vote will count for whichever you put second last.

With compulsory preferential voting, your vote can and often does count where you have no intention of it counting. Nothing could be more of a wrought of democracy.

David Latimer,

After the fiasco over weapons of mass destruction, I though you would have been more careful than to blindly copy data from the CIA.

When it comes to constitutions, the oldest is a matter of definition. Some would put the first one as far back as the Code of Hammurabi. The definitions I use are ones that I think most posters would relate to, which are:

1. A constitution is, as Justice Marshall said in the US: “A superior paramount law … unchangeable by ordinary means..” In other words, if an act called a constitution can be amended just like any other law, it is not what we would regard as one. This means that countries like NZ, UK, Canada only have constitution acts, not a constitution. Until 1982 Canada was governed under the British North America Act, and when they wanted a change they had to ask the UK to amend it.

2. The constitution must have been in continuous force, and not have been effectively suspended by military occupation, dictatorship etc.

Looking at David’s list we can exclude the following countries for the
reasons listed.

San Marino:............. definition 1
Argentina:............... dictatorship 1976-1983
Canada:.................. definition 1
Netherlands:.......... German occupation 1940-1945
Belgium:................. German occupation 1940-1944
Luxembourg:........... German occupation 1940-1944
Tonga:.................... definition 1

Denmark is a marginal case, as the German occupation was more of a token affair, and the constitution could be said to have remained in force.

This leaves the US, Switzerland and Denmark with older constitutions than us, and so ours is the fourth oldest.

Becoming a republic will allow Australia to mature and stand on it's own feet. However, Australia has such a small history it could get 'lost'.

Traditionally the English "peasants" were expected to cringingly touch their caps in deference to those who, by right of birth, considered themselves to be the peasants' "betters". The monarchy is part of this system. Even in Britain, an increasing number of people are seeing it as an unnecessary anachronism. Although it is good for their tourist trade, a bit like Side Show Alley.

We don't have this tradition in Australia. I would suggest that most of us consider ourselves to be the equals to the Queen and any member of her family. "Long to reign over us"? Bulldust!

Monarchists often say that the British monarchy is part of our checks and balances and this is currently true. But does anyone seriously believe that, given the necessary time and effort, we are unable to come up with a suitably fair republican system which would satisfy most Australians? Or are the monarchists claiming that the present system is the ultimate and cannot possibly be improved upon?

Response to plerdsus:

Completely wrong on eveything... and just as predicted.

The age of something is it's age.
A constitution is a constitution.

Perhaps you should ring up the consulates of these countries. Perhaps they will agree to revise their national histories so that you can avoid being accountable here.

The qualification on Denmark is very offensive. Was it a "token occupation" because hundreds died instead of thousands?

People like David Flint have invented silly statistics to support their ideas on the monarchy, which primarily rest on how the horrors of World War II fell unevenly upon various nations. Revolting stuff

Her Maj. has been 'our' Queen for 54[?] years. In that time she has been respected and hard working. No one can really make a valid criticism about her.
In 54 years how many Presidents have come and gone? Are any of them remembered as excellent? Hard working? Missed?
They are just a bunch of forgotten pollies now. Yet the Queen soldiers on at nearly eighty. Gotta respect that.

David Latimer,

I agree with almost every opinion you have. Please kep posting, we can really use someone here, who not only has an opinion, but who can also articulate it so beautifully.

Steel,
Could you define what you mean by mature? How will we individually become different when this change occurrs. How will standing on our own improve Australia?

From many of the republicans posting here I note the emotive immaturity of their language and would dispair if they were to write a constution for us all to live in agreement under.

Ludwig,
I feel your attitudes reflect sour grapes just because your first preferred Candidate did not become elected.

You control your vote not any Party - wake up and vote how you prefer. However unless your vote is extended to the last Candidate of your preference your vote is exausted early and you have no further say. Minor Parties are better served by preference distribution as demonstrated in my earlier example. Killing your vote early denies you any further say.

Philo

Many times I have mentioned this on OLO and this is the first time anyone has shown anything but full agreement.

You can presumably see that with the compulsory preferential system your vote can end up counting where you really don’t want it to count. Well then we need go no further. How can you say “You control your vote not any Party “? You simply CANNOT have a situation like that in a true democracy.

If you particularly wish not to vote for one of the big parties and you vote for example; Democrats, Greens, independent, independent, Liberal, Labor, your preferences will in all probability filter down to the bottom, and end up counting for liberal. In this case, it ends up counting where you specifically don’t want it to.

What this means is that you cannot vote for a minor party or an independent without your vote being hijacked, unless in the very small minority of instances, one of those candidates is actually the front-runner or second-placed vote-scorer.

In compulsory preferential voting, you DON’T have full control of your vote. In optional preferential voting, you do. In the latter system, you have the option of exhausting your vote for one candidate or declaring preferences as far down the ticket as you wish. Now that’s democratic! It has been operating in some state elections for a long time. It is tried and proven. Why on earth would we have a system that compels voters to mark every square? (Because it helps keep the two-party system entrenched and keeps those ‘ratbag’ elements suppressed)

Minor parties are most definitely NOT served by preference distribution that goes in the vast majority of cases to the major parties, and which cannot go to the minor parties without also scoring for the major parties, in most cases.

Ludwig,
I'm not sure which State you live in; but NSW has optional preferential voting, and the large parties holding seats publicise: "JUST Vote 1". This way is first past the post and the major Parties will knock out the distribution of their preferences to smaller Parties.

http://abc.net.au/elections/sa/2006/results/lccount.htm

One Nation 5817 0.8 0.1 -1.0
Family First Party 36644 4.9 0.6 +0.9
Labor Party 271757 36.6 4.4 +3.7
Liberal Party 189124 25.5 3.1 -14.6
National Party 5222 0.7 0.1 +0.2
Shooters party 4573 0.6 0.1 +0.6
Australian Greens 30326 4.1 0.5 +1.3
Nick Xenophon's No Pokies 159104 21.4 2.6 +20.2


In the SA elections the 'No Pokies - Nick Xenophon's independent' will hold the balance of power. It is obvious people are looking for alternatives.

Philo

“just vote 1” is a suggestion. If everyone, or the vast majority did this, it would pretty well be the same as first-past-the-post. But the thing is people are free in NSW and my state Queensland to exercise the option of declaring preferences or not. The net result is a wonderful mix, oozing the sweet smell of freedom of choice, of just-vote-1ers and preference-declarers. That makes it very different indeed to first-past-the-post.

If a lot of supporters of the major parties take up the just vote 1 suggestion, and don’t declare any preferences to the smaller parties, I can’t see that it would matter very much. Afterall, in the vast majority of cases, preferences wouldn’t count if you put one of the two major candidates / parties first. The difference between optional and compulsory preferential systems is most manifest for those who don’t vote for the major parties.

Can you see how, under the compulsory preferential system, your vote can end up counting where you really don’t want it to count?

Better to have a voting system like that of Switzerland's, where the population is better informed on issues and politics that affect them, and regular voting, rather than just every few years. Informed, involved citizens make a strong democracy, not monarchs or presidents.

Republicans need to sort out what their beef is: is it with the fact that our head of state is a foreigner, or is it with the fact that the head of state is chosen through chance of birth rather than through a democratic election?

Here’s a suggestion that may fix both without losing the stability that comes with our established form of government. It’s loosely based on the old Holy Roman Empire model of elective monarchy.

1) The Head of State will be an Australian citizen.
2) The Head of State will replace exactly the position and duties currently occupied and carried out by the Governor General, but without any reference to any foreign authority.
3) The Governors of the States will be retained in their office serving as viceroys of the Federal Head of State and continue to be chosen as they currently are but with reference to the Head of State in Canberra rather than to the British monarch.
4) The Governors of the States will form a Council of Electors responsible for choosing the Head of State.
5) [Nb. This is the clincher:] The Head of State will be elected FOR LIFE rather than a limited term in office.

Life-time office would mean stability and distance from day-to-day political issues while allowing time for respect, familiarity and fondness to grow among the citizens for their Head of State. It would be cost-effective and cause minimum disruption to the day-to-day business of government.

Of course, voluntary retirement should be allowed, and measures could be put in place for extraordinary circumstances should the removal of the head of state be required (eg. unanimous agreement of the Council of Electors).

I can’t imagine a more cost-effective, non-partisan and non-disruptive way of choosing and maintaining an Australian, non-hereditary Head of State. We could even call her or him "Your Majesty".

About voting (Philo and Ludwig):

There is an element of truth in both your views. The problem is that no system of voting is perfect. The argument is really about the advantages and disadvantages of each.

The preferential system is better than first past the post. But it does have some disadvantages. For example it is possible for a voter to cast a formal vote and cause the candidate they ranked last to win the election. Such a voter would be better off voting informally.

This is explained in the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

The advantage of the compulsory preferential system is that the winning candidate appears to have majority support. Ludwig is saying that this is an artificial majority in some circumstances. But it may help in confirming the legitimacy of parliament and thus for the overall stability of society.

Response to Schutz:

Your proposal implicitly merges the roles of Head of State and Governor-General. It also has the Governor-General appointing governors of states, who should be constitutionally independent of the federal government.

The Head of State should be an Australian citizen who replaces the duties of the current Head of State - the Queen. It is in those terms that your proposal would make most sense.

David Latimer,

I did say that Denmark could be considered marginal. If Denmark is ruled out by the German occupation, then our constitution becomes the third oldest.

Your suggestion that I ring up the relevant consulates gave me the best laugh I have had in years! Talk about self-serving. It reminded me of the time in the fifties when Evatt astounded the House of Reps by stating that he had proof that the Petrov affair was a conspiracy because Molotov had confirmed it. Of course republics like Argentina would like to forget the frequent dictatorships, brutalities, murder and torture that have characterised their history, and pretend that their constitution has held sway since 1853, but blind freddy knows better. Much the same can be said for many other republics, particularly the French, who I believe are currently up to their fifth republic, but that doesn’t get us very far.

To direct the debate back to the subject, we have had many posts from David Latimer, but nary a one that specifies a specific model. I know that many passionate republicans don’t care what model is adopted, but most people do, and we have the votes. I would love to see a proposal from him that takes into account the widespread contempt and suspicion in Australia of politicians and lawyers.

In particular, he should take into account Jack Cabe's famous remark: "The first thing we do, let's hang all the lawyers.", and secondly of Dr. Johnson's polite dictum that "he did not wish to speak ill of any man behind his back but he thought the gentleman was an attorney."

Over to you, David

David,

Currently the Governors of the States are appointed by the Head of State (as they would be in my proposal also). If the Head of State were resident in Canberra, the office of Governor General would be obsolete, since the office of Governor General is a Viceregal office. State Viceroys would continue to make sense as the Head of State (whom they would represent)would not be resident in any of the States.

If consider my proposal carefully, you will see that the Head of State (who has replaced the Governor General) is independant of the Federal Government (as is currently the case) by virtue of election by the State Viceroys.

If the role of Governor General remained (I situation which I believe would result in a bit of a double up, giving no breathing space for the Head of State), then the Governor General could be considered a member of the Council of Electors, perhaps as their head. I don't think that works quite as neatly, though.

Totally Agree Ev.

.
“The preferential system is better than first past the post.”

But David, the optional and compulsory preferential systems are poles apart. I would say that compulsory preferential is worse than first past the post.

“…it is possible for a voter to cast a formal vote and cause the candidate they ranked last to win the election.”

YES! But second-last, not last. This indicates that there is an absolutely fundamental problem with compulsory preferential voting, that outweighs anything else in any voting system – the fact that your vote can count where you have no intention of allowing it to count, which is diametrically opposed to the principle of voting!

“The advantage of the compulsory preferential system is that the winning candidate appears to have majority support”.

“Appears to have” indeed. In the optional preferential system, the winner has real majority support. Why is there an advantage in a system that appears to show majority support when that support is always partly false?

“Ludwig is saying that this is an artificial majority in some circumstances. But it may help in confirming the legitimacy of parliament and thus for the overall stability of society.”

It is an artificial majority to some extent, because some votes are gained from voters who declare preferences to winning candidates that they would not have declared if they didn’t have to number every box. How on earth can this help confirm the legitimacy of parliament? Surely just the opposite is true.

The stability of society requires the major parties to adapt to changing times. Compulsory preferential voting helps keep the minor parties suppressed and their doctrine minor. This helps keep the pressure off the big parties. Consequently, they are more inclined to practice the same old methodology, which might have been fine while the nation was developing, but which is not fine any longer, with real threats of resource depletion while demand continues to escalate.

Compulsory preferential voting aids political stagnation. In the short term this may help the stability of society, but in the longer term it is bad news.

response to SchÜtz,

If people want our Head of State to be an Australian Citizen, wouldn't the easiect way be to have the Citizenship Act amended to confer citizenship on the current monarch? There is actually a precedent for this in 1702, when the Act of Settlement settled the crown on Sophia of Hanover and her descendants. Having done this, the British Parliament passed an act for "The Naturalisation of Sophia, the Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the issue of her body"

p.s. where is the u umlaut key on an australian keyboard? I could only manage a capital one.

Response to Plerdsus:

I've always believed that being truthful is both self-serving and serves the interests of others. Nothing in what you say changes the age of the Argentine constitution. The document was written in 1853. It was not replaced in 1983, when democracy was restored. That’s how the age of something is determined.

Any you throw in France for some reason. Isn’t that Professor Flint’s habit when he gets stuck? We can be at least impressed by your confidence. BTW, you have yet to give an offensive and incorrect excuse for resetting the age of the constitution of Norway.

The latest foot-in-mouth effort, you say that "we have had many posts from David Latimer, but nary a one that specifies a specific model." You have overlooked my post of Sunday, 19 March 12:52 PM, which points to a better constitutional system under an Australian Republic. I’ll repeat part of that post here:
> See past article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3703
> See my model: http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/intro/

So not only have I explained the benefits of being a republic, I can outline what I believe to be the best way of establishing a republic. Yes, I can do it.

A summary of the model:
We want to elect our Head of State, but we don't want to destablise our system of government or worse, unravel our constitutional safeguards. Under my proposal, our Head of State shall be directly-elected, non-executive and apolitical. Their one and only constitutional duty would be to appoint the Governor-General and State Governors upon a nomination by the Prime Minister or Premier, respectively.

The governors would continue to be our constitutional umpires, impartial and able to exercise reserve powers if necessary. This would leave the Head of State with the role of an ambassador for Australian goodwill, our national representative above politics and independent of the Prime Minister and government in general.

You may also review my submission to the Senate Republican Inquiry of 2004: http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/submission/title.html

And the inclusion of my efforts in the final report "Road to a Republic": http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/republic03/report/c07.pdf

(No, I don't support hanging lawyers, or anyone else.)

David Latimer - in your model why would you need a Head of State as well as a Governor-General? - isn't this overkill? Surely just one person could do the job which would then permit taxpayers to fund a residence, salary and allowances commensurate with the status that should attach to such a position. This would provide Australia with a much needed National symbol and ambassador. I'm not too sure why we need separate State Governors either - if at the moment they are just representing the Queen in her absence then surely they are not needed when we have our own resident Head of State.

Response to Sajo:

Thanks for your question; it’s a good one. There are many reasons why replacing the Queen with an Australian Head of state (HOS) works and works well.

#1 It how the current system works today. The GG is not the HOS, the Queen is.

#2 Australians support a non-executive HOS. The GG has significant powers under the constitution. It's better and simpler not to strip the GG of these powers through codification.

#3 Many Australians support electing the HOS. But if we also want an apolitical HOS, then reserve powers cannot be assigned. No reserve powers means no mandate, no what-if questions during the election.

#4 It’s less expensive for the taxpayer. Although we must pay for this one new office (~10c/year/per capita), there is little cost for the six state governments. The states don't work out their republican transition and don't elect their governors. “Elect-the-GG/President” models result in being about twice as expensive.

#5 For what we pay, we get a direct benefit. We're paying the HOS to do a job, which is to promote civil society at home (eg community organisations, Australian values) and to promote Australian business, culture and tourism overseas.

#6 Governors and GG are overworked in their ceremonial roles. They attend thousand of events every year and have to reject invitations to thousands more. The model adds 15% capacity to these services, the first expansion in 100 years. (If we removed Governors then politicians would fill the void – a political speech for every community function!)

#7 Often overlooked, the Crown is a common feature of each state and the federation. The model maintains this unifying feature of the current system

#8 The conventions between the PM and GG remain operative.

#9 Transitionally, an elected HOS succeeds the existing HOS – no more complex than King Charles succeeding Queen Elizabeth.

#10 The PM does not interact with the HOS. They have very different constitutional roles. The separation of these roles is very distinct – a very advantageous feature.

#11 Less overall change to the constitution: about 300 to 600 words altered.

Excellent clarification, David. And thanks to Sajo for excellent comments.

I understand why we need an HOS as well as the traditional GG now.

However, think we can do without the state governors.

Question remains as to who does the nomination and election. Thank you for taking my thoughts on board.

Have had a lot more confidence in senate since RU486 debate. Seems that an honest vote across party lines is possible.

I am confident that Australia will become a republic - we can still remain a part of the commonwealth.

I also agree with keeping the transition as simple as possible. To emulate the American system would be a mistake. Although one thing from the American system would be good and that is the limited term for president (in our case PM) 2 terms and they're out.

There is a possibility that Howard will stand for and win a fourth term. Too much power for too long a time.

Regards

Dianne

Scout,
Obviously you do not believe in our system of democracy - because John Howard did not get there by hereditary or a political coup. Yes he holds his position because the people voted for him three years ago. His term 4 years max! Prime Minister John Howard is an elected representative and not an appointed Head Of State. Your views of the distribution of power under our Westminster system is rather fuzzy and unreliable.

Quote, "There is a possibility that Howard will stand for and win a fourth term. Too much power for too long a time."

David Latimer,

Thank you for the details of your republic proposals. I would certainly withdraw my comment that you hadn't made any proposals, unfortunately none of them had been mentioned on this particular question.

Before getting to your proposals, I trust we can end the age discussion by agreeing on the premise that "Australia has the third oldest constitution that has been continuously in force".

As fas as your proposals are concerned, there are two things that it does not address. These are:

1. There has to be something in it for monarchists. Experience with referendums, particularly the federation referendum, shows that every interest group must achieve a benefit from the change or it will not come about. The need for four sovereign states to agree means that interest groups around the country must see themselves benefiting. Those happy with the present system do not see change alone as a benefit.

2. You mention that the Queen's sole remaing function is to appoint the GG. However there remains the parallel function of dismissing the GG. The beauty of the present system is that, like the power of the GG to dismiss the PM, it is not codified. This means that although in all normal circumstances the Queen (or GG as appropriate) will follow the advice of the PM, she is not legally required to follow it. This is put beautifully in the Australia Act, when it lists the occasions when she may "receive" advice from relevant officials. Both the Queen and the GG need to be very careful in acting without advice, as to make a wrong move could destroy their position, but very many people gain comfort from this provision. A large number of them supported Kerr's dismissal of Whitlam, and the very democratic way that it put the issues at dispute in the hands of the people for a decision at the election that had to be called immediately.

As I have said before, I am not totally opposed to a suitable republican model, and have advocated citizen initiated referendum as the necessary sweetener that could satisfy monarchists.

Hi All,

To give a different / fresh perspective on the debate, the need to change should be based on future outlook rather than present & past history.

Australia interest, propsperity and security is infact in being an integral part of Asia. Australia demography is also heading towards this mix.

I have no baggage for or against since I am a newish Aussie migrant. But a monarchy seem to keep positioning Australia as Europe or part of. The monarchist will maintian the culture of seeing Asia and Asian countries as the 'other' while the republicans see Australasia as a real long term strategic alliance and teaming relationships to pursue common interests.

The issue in my humble views is not whether to remain a monarchy or become a republic, but the cultural change towards becoming the Switzerland of the South hemisphere. Leaders like Tim Fisher & Mark Vaile have great visions of what Australia's role is and should be. I could not care less if their titles will be PM in a monarchy or President of Australia.

Food for thoughts,

Peace,

Philo

Did you get out of bed on the wrong side or do you just have too much time on your hands?

Either way, seems like you checked your calendar and thought, hmmmm, haven't cast aspersions on Scout lately, must find some petty little comment and sling it her way.

I'm glad that you are aware that little Johnny Howard was elected - well done.

My point, which clearly went over your pretty lil head, is that when we look at determining the type of republic Australia will have in the not so distant future, consideration should be given to the length of term of our PM. We wouldn't want someone who has let power go to their heads stay in office indefinitely now would we? There are no doubt other concerns that can be sorted out as well, such as our voting system - preferential or not. There is a lot to consider and changing from monarchy to republic is an appropriate time to consider what works best for Australia. I hope this is not too difficult for you to follow.

Until your post, we were having a polite and interesting debate. Now, perhaps you may consider presenting a cogent argument for your views, perhaps not. Entirely up to you Phil as to whether you are capable of treating you fellow OLO posters with respect and courtesy, or you can continue as you have thus far.

Response to Philo: ditto Scout’s post.

Response to Plerdsus:

On the age of constitutions: if you keep resetting the age of other nation’s constitutions for arbitrary reasons, the Australian constitution could be in any age placing you like.

I'd say the oldest two enduring constitutions are Great Britain and San Marino (order indeterminable). After this, Massachusetts (1780), New Hampshire (1784) followed by the US federal constitution (1789). Norway is next (1814) and it had a legitimate government in exile during WWII. I won’t accept the Nazi invasion having greater legitimacy and resetting the constitution, not even for poor Luxembourg annexed into Germany. BTW Tonga’s 1875 constitution is entrenched (s79).

So no third placing – impossible. Are we finished now?

= + =

Issues not addressed? There’s 350 words per post. My original submission to the Senate is about 70 pages, covering all this.

1. For monarchists: There is a section that says the Queen should be implicitly recognised as the Head of the Commonwealth. Since republicans desire no change to our status in the Commonwealth, why not retain this non-constitutional link?

2. Where are those beautiful words in the Australia Act? The only relevant reference I find says that the Queen shall be advised by State Premiers (s7.5)

Under my proposal, dismissal is codified similar to the existing convention, so the PM must nominate a replacement GG, however the timing is left to the HOS. The current convention of the PM choosing the most senior state governor remains a convention, although that could be codified also.

Similar-minded republicans suggest the whole dismissal process should be left as convention, ie no mention of the PM. An alternative approach, yet to be explored, is that the HOS has the power to dismiss subject to a process described in entrenched legislation (eg with state consent)

Nevertheless, the intent is that the HOS does act as we understand the Queen would act and designing the detailed mechanism and/or actual wording is a very technical discussion, with a number of practicable solutions already outlined. With some discretion, is this any different from the status quo?

response to David Latimer:

I am surprised in your latest list of constitutions that you have included Great Britain, which has never had a written constitution, and Massachusetts and New Hampshire, which have never been independent states, unless you want to include their status under the Articles of Confederation. You may as well have included New South Wales and South Australia.

If you think that monarchists would be at all mollified by retention of the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth then my opinion of your abilities would take a severe battering. Most monarchists don't give a rats about the Commonwealth, but would love to keep a representative of Her Majesty who could do a bit of sacking now and then.

The only kind of reform I would really love to see would be one which prohibited the GG from giving reasons when sacking the PM. He would be restricted to an announcement that "the PM holds his office during my pleasure; he has displeased me and therefore I have dismissed him".

Always remember that at the end of the day any republican proposal has to be approved by the PEOPLE in four states. Extensive expansion of their powers over the elite would be necessary, with the kind of citizen initiated referendum enjoyed by the Swiss for over 125 years an ideal example.

Remember however that if citizen initiated referendum ever got up the first one would be on bring back hanging. Many other anti-PC ideas would shortly follow, with Pauline Hanson being consulted on other populist ideas, and that is why I cannot see it ever being achieved. So we stay with the status quo. Long live the Queen!

plerdsus,
Please continue but whatever you do don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

David Latimer has provided you with everything you could possibly need to know, and still you will not see.

You go on worshipping your old queen, while the more progressive of us fight to cut the apron strings and mature as a nation. The queen is an old parasite, she sails in costing us as taxpayers $3 million for a few days, then she is off after performing the most difficult of duties, talking, cutting a ribbon and pigging out on the best Australia has to offer, not bad work if you can get it, and she's not even an Aussie.

Response to Plerdsus:

Indeed, I do consider the US Articles of Confederation which stated that "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence [and do] enter into a firm league of friendship with each other." The only Australian candidate would be the constitution of WA (1889), but WA was a colony, not an independent state. The United Kingdom has a constitution, but it is not written neatly into one document. Nevertheless, those documents have existed for a long, long time.

Are you saying that monarchists don't care about the commonwealth? That does not make sense. Anyway, I care about it.

Thanks for the various reminders. I'm actually aiming for all six states to support a republican referendum.

There is a new website: http://www.copernican.info, which explains the various 'elect-the-HOS' proposals.

The thought of Australia becoming a republic frightens me.
Republics are what they have in North, Central and South America;
and are characterised by revolutions, civil wars, assasinations
and coups d'etat.
Is it simply a coincidence that Australia and Canada avoided such
nonsense?
In other parts of the world, even more grisly, are "People's
Republics" and "Democratic Repulics"

Under our present system politicians acknowledge a higher authority:
The Crown. It is a symbol of constitutional inegrity; a guarontor
of our rights and freedoms accrued over hundreds of years.

Response to Gulliver:

Are you really that frightened of your fellow Australians?

Monarchies are also associated with revolution and civil war: Russia, Turkey, Austria, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Romania and France. Are there not protests in Thailand this week?

This argument about monarchies offering stability is full of holes. The monarchy is not a stabilising force in Australia. We effectively run our own affairs anyway.

The reason Australia has avoided civil war and revolution is because of the good sense of the Australian people.

Well said Gulliver. I thought you might like the polish joke I have posted on another article on this subject:

Question: What is the difference between a republic and a people's republic?

Answer: It's the same as the difference between a chair and an electric chair.

response to David Latimer:

I am impressed to see you are aiming for all six states to support your proposal on a republic. This would create history, for as far as I know since Federation no referendum proposal which has been rejected has passed on a second or subsequent attempt. It would be even more impressive considering that in three states more than 58% of the electors opposed the proposal. The referendum that should be studied by republicans would be the Federation one itself, and that passed because a coalition was formed of different groups supporting it for entirely different reasons. Since federation no referendum has been approved that has had any sort of serious opposition. That means that you would have to convert someone like myself or Gulliver from an opponent to an active supporter. This means that people who are happy with the current system, who enjoy watching all the Federal politicians swearing allegiance to the Queen, have to achieve some other benefit, which they currently don't have, or they will just stick with the status quo with which they are happy

I am not attached to monarchies per se, nor am I opposed to republics per se. I am also not especially attached to our monarchy for its own sake, but I do see certain important advantages in it. I see no particular value in generic arguments about other monarchies and other republics.

While I disagree with David about what would be achieved by cutting our ties with the monarchy, I agree with him that (provided the right model could be found) a switch to a republic would not instantly blot out the good sense of the Australian people.

Achieving a majority in all states is, of course, an enormous ambition, but it would be utterly pointless to aim for anything less.

Response to Plerdsus:

This latest post, I cannot fault it's factual basis or its argument. The only mitigating point is that in proposing a directly-elected Head of State is not exactly repeating the same reform as the 1999 referendum.

The main groups* which need to be held are:
1. Conservatives sympathetic to a republic but worried about change
2. Progressives who demand a directly-elected presidency
3. Those in less populated states and rural areas, wary of centralism.

(* of course, it is far more complex than this in reality)

There's no reason why groups 1 and 2 can be held with a directly-elected president with no real powers who replaces the Queen, but there is a change of mindset required for active republicans (those that have thought about republicanism for years, sticking to old ideas). For us the real work is under point 3 - you cannot provide for this in the constitution, but progress is being made here by my colleague Dr Peter Carden (see page 6 of the Copernican Gazette, http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/archive/Gazette-Issue1-Final.pdf)