The very nub of the issue, Klaas, is your statement, "It suggests that the head of state issue is merely a prelude, a first step to what is to follow. What is to follow must surely be the business of the sovereign citizens of Australia".

Most of the "no"s don't really care whether the occupier of a post that is is no longer even ceremonial is appointed, elected or inherited. The current head of state, The Governor General, occupies the ceremonial position with certain limited powers in specific circumstances of deadlocked Parliament.

The Queen merely occupies a notional position, with effectively zero capacity to exercise power, in much the same way as God, in all his permutations, does in constitutions all over the world.

And blind freddy could see that the whole purpose of the republican movement is not the issue of the head of state but, as you put it, "merely a prelude, a first step to what is to follow".

And for the rural and regional community that is already under serious threat from the shredding of the social contract, through discriminatory environmental taxes, the trashing of property rights, inequitable distribution of state funds and double standards in basic health care, one for the cities and one for the bush, then this "prelude" can only be regarded as a serious threat.

All this country needs is one extra (7th) State and the Federal Constitution will become much easier to reform through referendum as the odd number of states creates the easier majority that was harder to achieve with only six.

But as for "what is to follow", you need to concentrate on ending the incompetent and unjust metropolitan political dominance over regional Australia by establishing new states in regional Victoria, NSW, Queensland and WA. These distinct communities of interest must have the protection of their own parliaments, making their own laws, spending their own share of GST funds, on their own priorities.

Without our own seats at the COAG table, the republican movement is just tinkering with the colour of the table cloth.

I agree with the reasons outlined by the previous respondent, a lack of political will, the perceived "royal ties" of a fast-fading out WW2 generation, allegiance to the current flag etc are going to be ongoning stumbling blocks for a little while yet.

For many who fought under the current flag in WW2 and Korea/SE Asia, even Vietnam, there are huge emotional issues involved. Plus the good old "fear of change."

Hence, it may be some time yet before the whole idea becomes pallatible to the majority of Australians - BUT not that long, I think (hope?)

Should Labor gain power after the next election, they would be foolish to challenge the status quo until their credentials are well established, another 6 years AT LEAST, probably more.

Howard NEVER will, so we continue to wait for a little while - BUT IT WILL HAPPEN within a decade or so I believe. meantime, artciles like Klaas are most helpful in keeping the move to a democratic republic in the news and before the eyes of a new public - ie immigrants to Australia (both old & new) and a younger demographic, who do not have these same emotive ties to the Queen and Flagt.

Charles Flesfader
Port Macquarie, NSW

Hi Perseus,

Major changes should work out to the advantage of the bush. The problem with the minimalist Republican Movement is that they are far too minimalist. I am of the view that this is a deeply conservative position rather than a front for bush unfriendly designs.

The replacement of federation with a much more favourable constitution for rural and regional Australia is long overdue. Federation is very costly, results in endless politicking
and buck passing. Effective decentralisation is thwarted by federation.

What should replace federation. My position is: Strengthen both National and Local Government. Another position is: National and Regional Government. In that model Local Government is minimised or removed altogether. I am not in favour of that.

In a two-tier structure we need National and Local Government both to be strengthened. Add to that (separate) Large City Government and what I call Mezzanine type of regions which are indirectly elected by Local Governments and responsible to it. The nature of the functions of these Regionals Councils (already existing) should be flexible - as they often are - but they should be recognised and protected in the Constitution as a permanent feature of the structure.

The Regional Organisation of Councils' role is important. The usefulness of such Regional Councils in a new Constitutional arrangement is, in my view, beyond question.

In this kind restructure the National Government should play a much more significant role for rural Australia. I am reasonably familiar with many of the issues in the bush, lived in Lismore for 22 years and have a son who did a Rural Science degree at UNE. He has worked in the bush for over 20 years, now works in a developing country in Asia.

Klaas Woldring (author)

The only political notary talking about real governmental reform at the moment is Lindsay Tanner - although Gillard and to a leser extent Rudd alluded to it since they took over the leadership -

Tanner is in the early days of advocating regional governments - but I suspect that the ideas are embryonic at best and the feel for change is far from strong enough - the same too for a republic however fashioned.

Howard seems to be moving to a state of empire ruled from Canberra with glacial determination - they will never say so but we keep sliding down the slope to centralising every power imaginable.

There will never be move to a republic or government reform under the conservatives - ever - unless Howard can engineer one that resembles that of Napoleon - and by crikey he seems close to achieving it

Every time I see a piece on the Republic, I hope against hope that it will provide a clear answer to the question "why should we care?"

And every time, I am disappointed.

This article starts with the utterly ridiculous claim that "[t]he republic is bursting to be launched".

I haven't heard the topic raised anywhere out in the real world since Howard's clever manipulation of the referendum. It simply isn't a subject that is relevant outside the government and its hangers-on. In my experience, the only people who bleat on and on about Australia becoming a Republic are those who either earn money for their bleatings, or stand to gain some form of financial advantage from the event itself.

My stance is that it is crystal clear that Australia does not "need" to retain its links with the Crown. However, in order to convince the citizenry at large that becoming a republic is preferable, some form of "what's in it for me" argument needs to be developed. Otherwise, it is a dead issue.

The underlying reason for the total apathy of the public is that it has lost all respect for politics, our political processes, and by association, our politicians. It is impossible for a normal, healthy family to relate to the blatant hypocrisy, mendacity and deviousness of those who are our parliamentarians. Add to that their sheer unworldliness, how can they possibly command the respect of anyone in the community?

Until and unless some bright spark comes up with a formula that is honest, open and clearly altruistic in its approach to our becoming a republic, no-one is going to raise a sweat. Until then I guess we will simply have to endure a regular diet of pointlessly mumbling articles such as this one.

Why bother ?

We can just wait for a Labor / Green Alliance Government at some point in the future who can stack the High Court and then we can get rid of the Royals that way.

What is the point of having expensive referendums when Governments ignore them anyway ?

I can only agree with Pericles when he highlights the general attitude towards politicians. Half the fun of politics is the irrational attitude each side has to the other. I would suggest that the basic minimum that the people expect of politicians is that they be perfect, with the hope that they will be a little better than that. The other expectation is that all taxes will be abolished, with any financial deficiency being made up from the sale of politician's assets.

Is it any surprise in these circumstances that many electors gain great comfort from the fact that the Prime Minister of the day holds his office during the pleasure of Her Majesty's representative?

Is it any surprise that when politician appointed activist judges interpret the Constitution in a manner totally at variance with reason and common sense, the people vote NO to any proposal to increase politicians powers?

If the author is serious about achieving a republic, and not just selling a book, he should be advocating citizen initiated referendums, along the lines followed in Switzerland. Only then will the people be able to enact provisions into law in the teeth of the opposition of the entire political and legal elite.

Until something like this happens the whole subject is just a big yawn.

‘The republic is bursting to be launched. Perhaps that should be: the republic’s PROCESS and STRATEGY are bursting to be launched. But what is stopping it? Why don't we hear about it? The real issues here are: what kind of republic and how can it be achieved?’ questions Woldring.

I think Woldring assumes just a bit too much. As misguided as he is, he does have a slight point. The bit where he reckons Australia is crying out and bursting to be a republic. He might be right in that certain sectors of the community are trying their dandiest to get everyone else to see their point of view. And as one might expect, they are mostly Leftists with a vested interest in socialism and authoritarianism. The rest of Woldrings’ republic-in- waiting acolytes are made up of the legal profession bent in screwing as much as they can out of a reconstituted constitution.

If the constitution is so bad, why hasn’t it been changed in the past? Is it to do with the fact that it is rock solid in the face of negative forces?. A factor for which it was so designed. Is it because to change the constitution, the apparatchicks of politicas and legality must ask the people of the nation, not their officious mates, to change it? Is it this fact alone, that the elite don’t like. Oh what power to be gained, if only they could snatch it from the people.

As far as I’m concerned, we should be wary of the ramblings of the Woldrings of this world, lest we find ourselves wrapped in a socio-political and economic trap not that different from the Singapore model.

If the republicans are really so bent on their new model of nationalism, why not ask the people, again. We will be asked what we want first, not told.

Let’s use our so-called outdated constitution to our own advantage, and not just be told what it is we want.

I think many people understand and agree with your thoughts on empowered local government, Klaas. But as local government is not currently recognised under the constitution, I think it is far more practical to simply revise (downwards) our views on what a state can be and make more of them. At least there is provision for this already in both Federal and State Constitutions.

And it seems fairly clear that the decision as to what role local government would have in each new state would be best left to the new state's voters. The ACT model where local government functions are taken into the provincial chamber is likely to have some appeal in smaller regional states where the need for a localised counter to a distant metropolitan government is no longer as important.

The really big hurdle for wider constitutional reform is the very size of the unknowns. Unknowns equal risk, risk equals negative. But approaching such reform by way of new states allows a true minimalist approach that can be sold to both early and late adopters.

A new state can simply take all the existing laws and policies of the current larger state and change the name. So all the laws of New South Wales would become the laws of a new northern state called New North Wales. Indeed, it is the only way this could be done and this would allow the good law and policy to remain in force for as long as the new parliament deems them relevant.

It would follow that all the existing local government and semi-government bodies would also remain intact until the primary service delivery obligations have been maintained. After which reforms appropriate to the new circumstances could be examined by the new state community.

It is evolution according to need and circumstance rather than revolution according to creed and ideology. And it leaves the existing city states with all their (for them successful) institutions intact.

What is the general feeling amongst republicans for the necessity of a purely ceremonial head of state?

Is therre any particular reason why we cannot have a modified version of the American system?

Hi all commentators,

Just some final comments. In answer to:

"If the constitution is so bad, why hasn’t it been changed in the past? Is it to do with the fact that it is rock solid in the face of negative forces?"

Four reasons:

1. It has proved extremely difficult to change the constitution, another disadvantage of the adversarial two-party system. Unless both major parties agree on the change it won't get up because the amending procedure (Section 128) is too difficult. It also suffers from the federal organisation: four out of six states need to show a majority. In this way ordinary national majorities have often been overruled.

2. The initiative to propose an amendment lies with the politicians only, not with the people. Hence these initiatives will always in some way favour the politicians. Even in cases where there clear advantage to all, the distrust will be such that many will still vote NO. I am entirely in favour of Citizen Initiated Referendums and you'l find that in the book. The idea was actually to have a flexible constitution (in 1900), but the record shows clearly that this has not eventuated.

3. Politicians have sometimes found ways to circumvent the constitution where is was clearly the only way around it. High Court often far-fetched interpretations achieve that objective.

4. Fourthly, the people's knowledge of the constitution is very inadequate. The blame for that lies with Australian Governments who have failed for over 100 years to educate the people about their constitution.

Should we be ruled from the grave by those who put it together in the 1890s?

I am not a lawyer and the book would have to sell unexpectedly well for me to make some money out of it. For the moment it has only cost me.

Merry Christmas to you all.

Klaas woldring

Jellyback asks: What is the general feeling amongst republicans for the necessity of a purely ceremonial head of state?

I am a republican who strongly supports the idea of a "ceremonial" head of state. For many people this conjures up military parades, ribbon cutting and greeting overseas dignitaries.

It's not like that, although Australia needs to have people doing this job. A company has its chairperson; a university has its chancellor and a charity its patron or spokesperson. If the Prime Minister undertook this role, it would take time away from running the government.

In practice, the actual ceremonial duties are a small part of the job. The governor-general and state governors involve themselves in community and charitable organisations. They present awards and acknowledge individual excellence. The key advantage in Australia is that these positions are apolitical, so these efforts in upholding civic society are rarely distracted by controversy or protest.

Every Government House, state or federal, annually receives hundreds of requests for appearances at events. Far more than can be practically fulfilled. This is evidence of the workload.

Finally, an apolitical role is important in the Executive Council, which acts as a clearing house for key governmental decisions and legislative enactments. An active Executive Council provides integrity and due process which may otherwise be short-circuited in the rush to achieve political outcomes.

Politicians and parliament are just one aspect of government, and there are many other roles. Each role is ideally filled by a person with the appropriate character and experience. To drop a role, because it does not attract controversy and media debate, would be to defy common sense and invite a fantasy of superhuman leadership.

For more information, and how this relates to the republic, see http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/

This time I do not propose to write a long essay as I view you do better to read my blog at http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and my website at http://www.schorel-hlavka.com to get some learning, as your question about the Republic issue in itself to me seems to be something that indicates you do not have a proper understanding of the constitutional concept existing since federation and the powers within that constitution.
In particular my blog may be of interst.
Just to make it clear, the Constitution does not permit any notion of republicanism and anyone who promotes the Commonwealth of Australia to become some purported Republic doesn't know what he/she is talking about. Can I be any clearer then that?