You assert that "the republican debate is in fact now over." Given that I've never seen a single convincing argument that the life of Australians would in any way be improved by becoming a republic, I think that a serious debate is yet to begin.

When Australians – not people like the author and Greg Barnes, who calls Australia a ‘pigsty’- but the majority of voters in a majority of states, decide that an Australian republic would be a good thing, then we will have one.

Hopefully, by the time the next referendum comes, voters will be advised just how much money it is going to cost them to introduce a republic which will give them nothing they don’t have now, and which is unlikely to bind together the tribal hotchpotch Australia has become, thanks to that other ill-founded policy – multiculturalism.

Meanwhile, there are many more important things affecting the people who will make the decision. As the recent referendum proved, a republic is not highly placed in the minds of the people. The fact that that the embittered Australia-basher Greg Barnes is fiddling about with ideas for Australia’s future should be of grave concern given his often disgraceful comments about the country on OLO and in the general media

This republic debate seems to go round and round in circles because so many protagonists don't seem to accept the basic realities of Australian politics.

The first is the well established premise, dating back to the NSW Corps, that the Government is the enemy of the People, and can never be trusted.

The fact that a republic cannot be achieved without a vote of the people, and that the public love to see politicians humiliated, particularly when they are dismissed by Her Majesty's representative, is completely ignored.

The fact that all Federal politicians with republican inclinations swore on oath that they would be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, would be of some significance if it were not accepted that politicians routinely lie in their teeth.

The only way a republic is going to come about is for the people to receive a quid pro quo, in the form of citizens initative referendum, enabling them to enact legislation in the teeth of the opposition of the political elite. Only then can important issues, such as reduction in politicians pay, and restoration of capital punishment, be brought back into the political arena.

Unless there is a quid pro quo there will be no republic. History shows that since federation there is no referendum that has been passed on a second try, with the NO vote usually being bigger second time around.

Peter van Vliet covers the main obstacles in reaching a republic, but without answers to address them. For example, the Irish model may be great in Ireland, but the existence of the Australian Senate makes an Irish Presidency unworkable in Australia. Sorry, but this is not a question of perfection vs imperfection as suggested in the article. It is a question of workable vs unworkable.

I believe there are major difficulties with all the current ARM models:
-- Models 1 to 3 would be rejected because the people do not choose the Head of State.
-- Model 4 has the problem that parliamentarians choose the candidates.
-- Models 4 and 5 will not even reach referendum because codifying the powers of the Governor-General is politically impossible.
-- The US-based model 6 has already been dropped by the ARM
(see http://www.republic.org.au/6models/index.htm)

In order to be successful a republic model needs to focus on separating of Australia from the monarchy. To be acceptable by government who must present a referendum bill to the parliament, the Head of State must be no political threat to the Prime Minister and unmoved and uninvolved in day-to-day politics.

For referendum success the new Head of State needs to be directly-elected, independent of all political parties and the government and a non-partisan figurehead who can speak freely. (eg the Irish President must get approval to make a speech from the government).

It should be a cost-effective proposal, with a range of benefits for Australia. For example, we know the Queen promotes British interests overseas and promotes charitable causes. What will an Australian Head of State be doing to further Australia's interests?

I would be interested if anyone would like to add to or expand on this, rather than have the usual distractions. I’ll say up front that I have a vested interest as a member of the Copernican Group (http://www.copernican.info).

Please consider also adding comments to our forum http://www.7gs.com/copernican/

I have a dream (with apologies to Martin) that my model can get up.

1. No real constitutional change because we already elect enough houses and reps to govern us for 4 years and we get what we vote for. (i.e., we already have double check houses at both state and federal level.)

2. Our new President has no power whatsoever, other than his/her word on any issue.

3. He or she will get passed the political “power dilemma” opposition because of 1. And 2.

4. Because of 1, 2 and 3. The people will elect him or her President.

From my view, all I want is a leader we can count on to be respected in this country and around the world. Currently, we elect politicians to be our leaders and cower in embarrassment every time they open their mouths because they feel they cannot tell us the truth on any subject.

I want a President purely because I would like a leader, I and all of the people of this nation, would be proud of, rather than a person who does not really represent the essential psyche of the people of this nation.

The intelligentsia will brand me naïve for the above but that is my reason for wanting a republic.

"For referendum success the new Head of State needs to be directly-elected, independent of all political parties and the government and...non-partisan".

A direct election? You'll get Ray Bloody Martin for President! The proposal that a president be chosen by a two-thirds majority of parliament makes a lot more sense to me, since every one of them is already representative of the electorate. It's also a more democratic method than what we use now.

If this debate continues long enough the choice will be made for us. A similar debate is taking place in the Auld Country and many of them, let alone us, are having second thoughts about a King William.

"For referendum success the new Head of State needs to be directly-elected, independent of all political parties and the government and...non-partisan". OK, thats what I said.

Bennie's response: "A direct election? You'll get Ray Bloody Martin for President!" It has been a long time since Ray Martin won even logie award. Your prediction seems far fetched. And for Vice President are you going to suggest Guy Sebastian?

In a democracy, the people are the boss. It makes sense that the people choose their Head of State, not the politicians.

My view is we do need someone to promote Australian business, culture, innovation and tourism to the world. This is what the Queen does for Britain, not for Australia. We also need someone who can refect on of Australian values (being apolitical would help), support charities and community organisations, and encourage volunteerism.

The politician's preference is a Head of State who is out-of-sight, out-of-mind. Prime Ministers prefer not to share the box seat, as that helps them stay popular and in power - "don't blame me - I was at the football."

Under an Australian Republic, the Head of State takes the box seat, above politics entirely. The Governor-General is looking over the shoulder of the Prime Minister (constitutional umpire), and the Prime Minister is focused on managing the country and leading the political debate.

It'd be nice if politicians represented their electorates, they don't. They represent their party and vested corporate interests, nothing else. Having them elect a head of state, results in a corporate controlled statehood, no different to now. With the unconstitutional forced preferential voting system, nothing will change, its virtually impossible.

David, I agree with you on many points, particularly regarding promoting Aus. To get the best person for that, we need a free vote with no political involvement, no campaigning. No lawyer, accountant or CEO, but someone who's a good example for this country. Maybe the bloke or sheila down the road, or dame Edna, would it matter as long as the world sees us as happy. I don't see any politician, corporate head or bureaucrat displaying a good example for this country, quite the opposite. I read your site, but couldn't access your constitution. There's nothing on your site that gives me confidence in your ability to provide a fair model, lots of semantics but little substance for the average person.

Writing a long tirade of semantic non speak jargon, is a reflection of the approach your ilk take towards the populace and a reason our system's the way it is. You don't engage, encourage nor give confidence, just non speak lecturing, very boring.

Until we rid the system of elite control, make politicians, bureaucrats and CEO's fully accountable for their actions, nothing will change. Your republic is just another way for fools to keep control. We need to adapt to the future first, our stability, pride, security and strength originally came from our isolation and unique innovative culture. Now the political correct, in allegiance with a despotic corporate and political system, have ruined that.

You have to understand David, its lawyers, academics, bureaucrats and CEO's who've put us in this position. Their uselessness is well documented in the condition of our world and societies. We don't need a republic, but an entirely new sytem that empowers the people, not disenfranchises them, as all political systems do now.

Alchemist, I disagree. Change, even a few words, of the constitution, & those same lawyers & the activist judges will reinterpret it to something entirely different, while having a feeding frenzy.
If you want an expensive catastrophe, just open the door. They are lined up at the door, like shoppers at an after christmas sale. I can see them slobbering at the mouth, from here.

Just when you think they have stopped barking and lain down-up they come again.
Well with a bit of luck we could get another President Mugabe,Castro or even..Bush.
Look at what advantages they have given their countries.

Response to Alchemist: "lots of semantics but little substance."

http://www.copernican.info is a hub to a number of websites and documents written members of the Copernican Group. There is a newsletter and Internet forum, like OLO. Of course, the opening page is a broadsweeping introduction to all of this!

My particular site, which is very extensive, is http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/ The Honorary President site contains both introductory and detailed material, including proposed amendments to the constitution, how the office of Head of State would function and how much it could cost.

It is not possible for any one person to dictate the detail of a republican model. That would not produce the best result for Australia. Hence the introductory pages discuss the general ideas, so to encourage as much input as possible. Even within the Copernican Group there is a collegial approach. We are open to discussion and criticism online 24-7 in the forum http://www.7gs.com/copernican/

So far, the Copernican Group has been criticised for presenting on several detailed models with common themes. I've even had negative feedback simply because several alternative options were provided on a technical point. Then there is are those who complain because we are discussing republicanism instead of their unrelated issue.

However, I am satisfied that we've taken the right approach. We are not trying to sell vacuum cleaners - switch it on and off you go. We are exploring what will work in our constitutional system and what is desirable and beneficial for Australia. Working openly means the results are transparent, honest and realistic.

Please have a look again and offer suggestions which may help Australia move forward OR lets look at what the public really expects a Head of State to do, when and when there is not a constitutional crisis.

David, I've looked through your sites, your constitution's just another formula for continuing political party control. Ruling political parties with huge corporate backing, choosing 7 candidates and the people 3 with no ability to promote, another elitist con. A non political head of state nominated by politicians, very logical.

Your just spinning window dressing change, designed to keep power in vested hands disenfranchising the people. No change in the head of state or status of this country will work, until you re-construct the entire sociological and political system from the bottom up.

As I said before, your site is just a semantic mantra of political spin, with nothing new or beneficial for the progress and sustainability of this country and the people. Any new approach to government and politics, will only succeed when the people have confidence in its outcome. You can only do that when the people feel comfortable, secure and happy with the directions and outcomes they can see. Nothing you write nor any other elitist, will change peoples minds, unlike in the past where you could lord it over them with your supposed superior educated intelligence, we see the results of your control over the last 30 years and its stuffed.

No longer do people see lawyers, doctors, politicians, corporate heads or bureaucrats as being capable, they see the results of elitism in business, education, infrastructure, health, justice and political systems.

The people are looking for those who represent them, who relate to them, who support them, who care for them, who care for equality in life and the right to be free responsibly. They want those who'll give us cheap sustainable energy, not monopolised enslavement to elite profit making.

Once people see the results of real progress, constitutional changes will be easy, as people will have faith and confidence. Instead of now having fear and loathing for the elite.

Hasbeen, once you remove legalese and have plain language bottom line laws, the people judging the outcomes, you don't need judges or lawyers. The same goes for legislation, all laws, plain English with understandable requirements and outcomes.

Alchemist - Sorry, I cannot take your criticism seriously.

You ask for a reconstruction of the "sociological and political system from the bottom up". Then you say "[a]ny new approach to government and politics, will only succeed when the people have confidence in its outcome".

I can assure you that no revolutionary proposal can attain confidence of the people in its outcome.

On the other hand, the Copernican Group is able to engender confidence. Our proposal is limited to replacing the Queen, and the outcomes are modest, but realistic and quantifiable.

YES, the Australia people will directly choose their Head of State.

YES, the Head of State will be independent of the government and be apolitical.

YES, the Head of State will have the capacity to promote Australian interests overseas and encourage charities, philanthropy and community/civic organisations domestically.

YES, the Head of State will be a positive role model for the nation in sofar as any human being can be.

NO, the Head of State (or this change) will not change the basic nature of government, political parties and politicians.

NO, it will not result in nirvana, a golden age or a perfect world. I am sorry, but that cannot be offered by the corporeal world and no sane person would trust a republican movement that promised otherwise.

There is more to Australia than the apperatus of government. If you want to see "represenation", "support", "care", "equality in life" or "cheap sustainable energy", do not look to government alone - you will be disappointed. Community organisations do many of the hard yards, and an independent, democratic, apolitical Head of State would be a great gift to those who desire a better society.

“I can assure you that no revolutionary proposal can attain confidence of the people in its outcome.”

David, maybe that's because you can't see past your narrow perspective, could be your elitist, 'I'm right'“ attitude. People are hungry for change away from this despotic lib/lab elitist regime we currently have.

We need a system giving us freedom from religious, cultural, economic, legal and corporate control, currently offered up by the ruling unevolved elite.

“YES, the Australia people will directly choose their Head of State.”

From seven supported candidates, chosen by the ruling state Lib/Lab factions and 3 unsupported by the public. In a ballot, (read forced preferential vote).

"YES, the Head of State will be independent of the government and be apolitical."

Chosen by political parties and representing their vested interests.

“NO, the Head of State (or this change) will not change the basic nature of government, political parties and politicians. “

More of the same we have now, with a different spin, typical elitist propaganda. Where'd you do your training, toast masters, their brilliant at teaching deceptive lying.

David, don't you understand, we're sick of your corporate world. Take note of the repeating history of the past, whenever the elite take over societies enslaving the people, they rebel, destroying the elite.

We're very close to that position now, considering the gross corruption, bribery (political donations), freedom removals, corporate control, unjust legal system and discriminant behaviour of the elite in their grab for more power.

Your republic push is just to try and take peoples minds of the destruction you and your ilk are causing to society, so you can continue your push for total enslavement of the populace by elitist and corporate control.

Alchemist,

It's not often I have to agree with David Latimer, but as far as I can see you are off with the fairies. What you don't seem able to see is that any person who gets elected for anything, is automatically a politician, and subject to the Australian attitiude to politicians. It is best expressed as item 3 in the list of great Australian political truths:

"In any election, no matter whom you vote for, a POLITICIAN is ALWAYS elected."

If you don't like the current system here, tell me where there is a better one. I think some people by nature are never satisfied, and long for nirvana.

It is my judgement that for as long as people continue to argue over the form of a republic, it will never be achieved. As a result we may continue to say:

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

Towards the Republic of Australia.
It is clear that the large majority (80% on the latest poll) of Australians support the idea that we should become a Free and Independent Republic with our own chosen Head of State. We no longer wish to remain mere “subjects of the foreign Queen” But the minority who support the monarchy exploit the weakness in the system. They recognise that though there is a majority in favour of the change, there are differences of opinion in the way the Head of State is selected/elected. These differences were used by John Howard to split the last vote and cause the basic change to be lost. We must not be deceived at the next referendum. We need a two stage process. First a referendum with a very simple question to answer.” Should Australia become a Free and Independent Republic with its own chosen Head of State” Yes/No.
Once this decision is carried, and we follow in the path of the majority of former colonies, THEN we can have a working party to prepare a report on the necessary Constitutional changes. These changes can then be put to the people in the form of a Referendum and the necessary changes implemented.
We must not allow the diverse opinions as to the method of selecting/electing the Head of State to prevent us from becoming Citizens of Australia rather than Subjects of the Foreign Queen. Those who support the retention of the out moded monarchy recognise this debate on the method of choosing the Head of State and will exploit it to our disadvantage. Let’s follow the K.I.S.S. principle and allow a clear decision to be made.

I was born British, just like everyone else who was born in Australia before 1973 or in New Zealand or Canada before 1977. That makes it kind of hard for me to see the Queen as a foreigner. I didn't ask to have my British status taken away from me.

In 1901, the six Australian colonies decided to federate, believing that their similarities were greater than their differences and that they could achieve more together than alone. Looking at Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (CANZUK), I feel the same way now.

Our similarities are far greater than our differences and we could achieve much more together than alone. Rather than thumbing our nose to this family, we should be taking the logical next step and forming a federation with them. We could start with reciprocal citizenship rights and free trade and move on from there.

Ian, reciprocal rights were very well when our countries were not mucked up with Multiculture. Quite frankly, there are a lot of "British","Canadians" ect I would not like to see here. We have enough trouble.
But I think the Commonwealth of nations is a good one to stick with,we have never had trouble from it.
A republic will come one day but until they come up with something we can believe in and trust, the present status of Australia is fine.

Response to Alechmist:

Thanks for reading my proposal for an Australian Head of State.

It seems you have caught me out trying to enslave the people, tricking them into believing they get to choose the head of state, when my real intent is to sharpen my spin doctoring skills and hasten the march of the corporate regime over the hard won freedoms of ordinary Australians.

If you want to checkout my narrow-minded elitist propoganda, click on: http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/

Response to David Gothard:
You may remember that the republicans lost the 1999 referendum because the model put lacked a directly-elected Head of State. There should be no argument that the next model should allow any Australian to have the opportunity to be nominated and elected as Australia's most senior officeholder.

In the Copernican Group (http://www.copernican.info) we are determined to achieve this in the simplest possible way, which is by replacing the Queen in her Australia role by an elected, non-exective, apolitical Australian.

Plerdsus, I agree, that's why we need a completely new system of government. "Your of with the fairies", if you think just changing a head of state will improve our dwindling control over our lives. We should be our own country, not a reflection of others that are rapidly failing tbeir people.

David's model is a continuation of the same, with the chance of us losing more control. Considering how honest our politicians are and who they support, once the people say yes to a republic they will say they have a mandate to do it and we'll get their model, not ours.

David's gives a choice between 3 unsupported people candidates, which will end up being from the elite, as they have economic and political power. Against 7 candidates chosen and supported by the political parties, giving the elite more power. Unrestrained by a governor general or non changeable head of state. Governor generals are political appointments, nothing else, they don't reflect the peoples wishes, but the elites. As for anyone being able to become president, sure just like in the USA

We are a unique country, as we have no physical attachments to any other society, we should have a unique system of running this country for us all. Not just the elite getting all the say and benefits.

The legal profession has stuffed our justice system, society and governments, aided by big business and the bureaucracy. Why continue to believe or trust them, they just make things worse for us all. What's the use of a purely powerless head of state anyway, the best promotion we get is by the attainment of ordinary people, not a bunch of flip flops.

I certainly don't believe we should have any alliance with others in government or borders, as others have said, they've already let to many fools in. Time to take a lateral approach, before we sink into the mire with the rest of the world.

I assume by "unsupported candidates" Alechmist means unsupported by political parties. Why is there a problem with that? It's a good thing!

Alchemist says 7 candidates supported by political parties, which is of course not the full story. Every state parliament and the federal parliament may nominate a former governor. This would normally result in a bi-partisan nomination.

Because there are six states and one federal parliament, there are seven nominations under this method. The other three candidates are nominated by public petition. (10 candidates in total)

The Honorary President proposal, and there are others under the Copernican Group (http://www.copernican.info) attains the following:
- Anyone can become Head of State
- Candidates are from every part of Australia
- Some candidates will have the experience of being governor
- It would be rare to have a partisan candidate on the ballot

When I vote in the election for an Australian Head of State, I'll be looking for exception qualities of character and ability, and a record of community service and achievement. Most Australians would do the same. I doubt we'll be put off by arbitary labels like "elite" (as per Alechmist's view). It is too much to looking for the best person for the job?

Not while we are led by Liars.

The trick to becoming a Republic is to phase it in over a sufficient (say 50 years) so that it is Guaranteed to frustrate any citizen who is making plans to PROFIT from the changeover. A Republic MUST be for all AUSTRALIANS. It must NOT be a free for all based on unsound focused immigration where ethnic clusters have excessive voting rights.

EG, Morris Iemma's Italian Labour party has given NSW a 10 year Plan that says it gives control back to NSW citizens but is underpinned with an annual addition of 100,000 immigrants and in excess of 50,000 cars. The TRUTH is Iemma couldn't deliver his plan if he halted DEVELOPMENT and new arrivals to Sydney, If he let them go to say Melbourne or Canberra or Orange where there are no Gridlocks yet. The fact that he says it can be done developing bio-banks and building 100,000 new homes and carports every year for the next 10years is becuase of post-ministerial Jobs and favours. This makes his 10 year plan a joke like the monkey with its hand caught in the rock hole who will never get free because he won't let go of the banana. NSW is MORE than Sydney and east coast resort space. 'Iemma and NSW Labor' are in essence like the Sheriff of Nottingham and his Barons. They are 'Iemma and Sydney Labor' all too willing to tax NSW into abject poverty so they can build better castles in Sydney, aka Nottingham.

This kind of Corporate-Government fraud is rife throughout Australia. Citizens of NSW and Australia can and MUST do better than this and until they do the option of an Australian Republic is an obscene insult to the intelligence of ALL Australians.

Response to KAEP:

Your post makes no sense. You have taken several issues with no connection with each other or to the republic, and called it fraud and lies.

When republicans make honest proposals for a better Australia, and someone cries "Lies! Fraud!" without cause, this has the result of discouraging honesty and hurting Australia. And to make myself clear: if a monarchist honestly identified a problem with a proposed reform, shouting them down would have the same result of hurting Australia also.

With your head so deep in the sand I'm not surprised you don't see the connections to fraud, lies and an Australin Republic Latimer. Or is it that you are just hiding behind your finger.

If I have my way, all repuublican movement leaders will have their pecuniary interests in a future Republic investigated and the results openly published.

How frustrating is that!

I'm sure you'll let us ALL know.

It seems to me that the desire to adopt a presidential system in Australia is necessarily related to a desire for a greater separation in relation to Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

Since I would prefer to be working towards closer ties with these countries, rather than cutting the ones we already have, I am happy with our shared monarchy. I think it is a useful link between our family of nations.

That does not mean that I think David Latimer and others are only concerned with getting personal advantage from constitutional change. I respect David's views and see merit in his proposal, but we have essentially different views of Australia and its place in the world.

Ian,

The fact that you think David Latimer and others are not ONLY concerned with getting personal advantage from constitutional change is irrelevent. ALL pecuniary interests and long term plans and affiliations associated with potential Republican aspirants' must be scrutinised by the Australian people. That is fair and just. You wouldn't let me walk into your house and take over the decision making unchecked and WE won't allow unknown mouthpieces to do that to Australia.

Additionally if by saying you respect David's opinions you mean you respect his propensity for pettifogging (a trait generally associated with ulterior motivation) I have some serious concerns about YOU.

Thanks Ian.

Response to KAEP:
Under the Australian constitution, the decision making power concerning an Australian republic (or any other constitutional reform) is given to the people of Australia.

Working to advance an Australian republic is my constitutional and democratic right and is a form of voluntary public service (our monarchist opponents equally so). Those involved in the republican movement give up their time and money to make this contribution.

An example would be the time and money which was used to develop the Copernican Republic Forum website: http://www.7gs.com/copernican

This site carries no advertising and is able to collect comments on the various proposals developed by our group, without receiving one cent in return. The only benefit is developing a better proposal.

Our group published a journal which is available online, but the costs of printing and mailing were shared by members. http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/archive/Gazette-Issue1-Final.pdf

All republican groups, including the ARM, work on the same principle.

If the Copernican proposal is taken up, Australia will have an independent, apolitical, democratically elected Head of State. To be taken up, the people must approve it and they shall share in the pecuniary costs and benefits.

I suggest you read something of the personal history of Copernicus and whether it was he or us who benefited from his work.

For more information on the Copernican Group: http://www.copernican.info