An interesting enough article, with interesting enough ideas. I'm not sure that I agree with much of it though.

Sure, the economic climate may well have an impact on voters; sure, the radicals at both ends of the debate add colour and light to the arguments (we really need an Australian equivalent of the Monster Raving Loony Party, just to enliven our campaigns. Now THERE is some electoral reform I could go for).

Really, though, the reasons why the republican movement have stalled are surely more complex than this article suggests. Isn't the basic paradox the fact that a "minimalist" republic will be forever open to charges that it is a huge waste of money for a purpose that goes nowhere beyond symbolism; while a more substantial constitutional reform risks having its momentum grind down in the debate on the details?

There may be, for instance, popular support for the concept of electing a President. But how would such a process mesh with a parliamentary system based on responsible government? The devil's in the detail, and opponents of the bill can pick at the eyes of any reform proposal by isolating its most concerning details.

The elephant in the room is s.128. The sheer difficulty of getting the necessary double-majority on *any* controversial topic is overwhelming. Majority popular support for a SPECIFIC proposal is still not going to be enough. The support would have to be overwhelming, because in constitutional change contests, a mediocre defence is still odds-on to defeat an excellent offence.

Possibly the colonial-style quarry economy, in which our self-supportive manufacturing structure has now pretty well disappeared, allowing only a temporary infrastructure to support our outback pitstock boom in iron-ore and metals precious to manufacturing in China and India, and still in Japan. One wonders about such a big step back, if we do not somehow equal more in a modern sense, the types of innovative manufacturing we became so famous for in the past?

It is so interesting that we were not only manufacturing our own steam locomotives and rolling stock in Australia, but did actually put together from our own and overseas smaller patents, the reaper-thresher that the huge combine harvesters that we pay fortunes for now from America, were derived from.

We also invented the non-cutter blade systematic stripper harvester with a peg-drum thresher, and which made good sales in South America, particularly in the Argentine.

The stump-jump disc plough was also our invention, and later famous world-wide.

Moreover we were also making our own heavy truck for some time, per favour of course from IHC - International Harvester Company of the US of A. Probably when we began to innovately go downhill.

Nearly forgot about our last park or garden contribution, the Victa Mower, mother of all such lawn trimmers worldwide.

Now all we have to replace such innovative capacity is a world record overseas debt so big, the Howard government is dead-scared to mention it through the media.

What's the bet one doesn't get credit for the above, but only the usual Old Pap stuff caused by out of date looney left wing leanings.

I agree with communicat.

The argument for a Republic with a President based on nationalism and restriction against those not born here contradicts itself. The official head of the Australian Commonwealth upholds democracy above political corruption, without divisive special interest and without prejudice.

She or he is the Australian official head of State, the Defender of the Military, "the faith", and is our ultimate diplomat.

The Governor General does not have to be born here but these days, usually is. He holds the Crown, and the Crown is the balance itself.

I am don't believe that I am radical on this issue at all: neither a traditional Royalist nor an extreme leftist. I am, however, consistently an advocate for an Australian Bill or Charter of Rights. All OECD democracies have a written Bill or Charter of Rights: even the UK and NZ. Democratic Kingdoms like the Netherlands and Sweden have their rights enshrined. Australia is the last without one. So we have no rights etched in stone.

On my views on Prince William and Charles III why not look at my thread?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=771

Quoting Parkes is just abject nationalism without consideration for the tyranny, which the man caused.

Trusting former communist, Republican and born-again tycoon: Malcolm Turnbull, wife of Lucy Turbull: the infamous former Mayor of Sydney just discredits the writer.

Saying that we are incomplete without a Republican President for Australia, in the system that we have now is under-graduate.

We don't need more power for the Australian elite tycoons; we need our rights as the people. Unless this happens, well, we are better off trusting the Palace. Who in Australia would you trust as President? John Howard?

Andrew

As one of the 'leftist vermin', I think the outstanding positive of not being a republic is that Australia is a member of the Commonwealth countries.

This allows young Australians to reside in other Commonwealth countries such as England and Canada.

This opportunity has become a passage of right for young Australians. It would be a shame if Australians were no longer offered this opportunity.

We are a remote country. It broadens opportunities as well as the mind. And I quite like British people to boot.

I hope we do not become a republic for these reasons alone.

If Australians were offered a republic, what sort would it be? One where the head of state has considerable political power such as France or the US? Or one where the head of state takes a backseat to the head of government such as Germany or Israel?

If republicans offer the latter model then there is little point in changing the status quo. If it is the former model then you will have to have more far-reaching change. Is that possible?

I hate the idea of people being born to rule - even only in a limited sense. But I can't get excited about a head of state being appointed by a group of politicians - especially when already the Prime Minister appoints the person who represents our head of state.

i suppose actual democracy is out of the question?