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/