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.