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?