“We need constitutional reform, that is, a successful constitutional referendum, to make Australia into a republic.”

We do not “need” to make Australia a republic. John Warhurst and some others might “want” Australia to be a republic, but there is no need (meaning necessity) for Australia to become a republic. Most Australians have convinced politicians, via a referendum, that they do not feel the need and, while Australia might eventually become a republic, there are more pressing problems now and in the foreseeable future for us to be getting on with.

In the meantime, save us from bores like John Warhurst who think that their words, repeated often enough, will wear us down

The claim is that the majority desire a republic. Then - why did the republican camp loose when the nation voted on the issue? The 'desire" must be fairly weak to change the majority public opinion apparently as the voters approached the ballot box.

We wasted $93 million on the previous farce. Let's not go through that again.

The first of today's pieces frankly is banal. Its lack of substance is a reflection of the lack of merit in the Republican position. As has already been remarked, there may be a "wish" but not a "need". The issue ranks very low in the election, as it should. In due course the real matter in contention will be whether the Head of State should be elected. I shudder at the thought. iudex

The Republican issue is dead.

No-one is interested.

The people spoke; accept their decision.

Not being a Republic has absolutely no bearing on our quality of life or our system of democracy.

You may deem it anachronistic, but there is nothing more sad and pitiful than a rabble of vested individuals who keep sooking because they didn't get what they want.

Most of us have moved on.

I suggest you do the same.

If the republic movement is ever going to get anywhere, it must face the fact that it will be a three strike loser in the lead-up to any new referendum. This is because:

1. There has never been an instance since federation, where a referendum, having failed the first time, has passed on a subsequent attempt.

2. In the whole period since federation, despite all its attempts, the Labor Party has only succeeded in having one referendum passed, and that was sixty-one years ago.

3. The political elite seems unable to acknowledge the attitude of Australians toward politicians, and the comfort that so many people draw from the fact that the Queen, together with her representatives, under sections 59 and 64 of the Constitution, is standing by, ready to sack, and ready to disallow.

The four basic principles of Australian politics are:

1. The government is the ENEMY of the PEOPLE, and can never be trusted.
2. No taxation with or without representation, with any deficiency in government accounts being made up from the sale of politician’s assets.
3. The main problem with elections is that no matter whom you vote for, a POLITICIAN is ALWAYS elected.
4. ALWAYS vote NO at referendums.

The elite must realise that it is not for them to have ideas. The people have the ideas. It is the role of the elite to carry out the people's ideas. If they don't, they will be thrown out of office and replaced by those who will carry out the people's ideas. This, by the way, is called democracy.

As a result, if the elite really want a republic, they must offer something to the people that is worth giving up the Queen for. The best thing I can think of would be to offer Citizen's Initiative Referendum, where the people can enact legislation in the teeth of the opposition of the entire political and legal elite.

Of course, if this ever comes about, the first referendum would have to be on bringing back hanging.

Yes a timely reminder that in the midst of our more immediate problems the question of a republic should be on the agenda.In 1959 I held a "British Passport" when I travelled through Europe. Now, I WOULD BE "AN ALIEN" on arrival in England. In Germany when asked, who was our Head of State, I would be embarrassed to say "The Queen of England! If we consider it so small on our priorities, why not have a popular vote next sensis, to save money, a choice like Steve Irwin or Dawn Fraser!

Look this business of who is or isn't head of state of european Australia is for european's to decide, which I believe they did so end of Story.

We the rightfull legal owners of this land pre invasion ( ten generations or more) do not recognise her or the union jack so its irrelavant to us who you lot choose as your head of state. Your culture is not "Australian" (Aboriginal) because its only six generations old its european, and most of you came from Brition so I don't understand the logic in the argument

1st: ozzies are not a democratic people. far from it, they have no experience of democracy and confuse it with being invited to choose between attila and hagar at three year intervals. this confusion is natural as oz has been a testing ground for doublethink and newspeak for many years. the tests were sucessful, and ozzies can say:"our monarchy is a democracy run by the pm" without hesitation, never missing 'by the people'.

2nd: but you should have a local notable as head of state. an australian king would be best- a successful sports person, married to a blonde trophy wife who has produced a son by the 'king', hereditary succession saves a lot of money on stationery.

3rd: but it's not your place to discuss these matters. your betters in parliament will tell you what they want, and you will do it. you always have.

Couldn't agree more Tinman. I travelled to the UK in 1996 and on arrival at Gatwick I joined the Aliens queue. The Germans, French and Italians sailed through to a much shorter EU queue. The surly British clerk eyed my Australian passport suspiciously and grudgingly stamped it only after having sighted my return ticket.

When Queen Elizabeth dies we will be faced with a dilemna. Do we really want King Charles (or King William) as our head of state? Really?

John Warhurst, you write about constitutional reform and upgrading our political system, but you don’t give even a hint of how improvements in our system might work towards securing a better future than the current system.

How might it change our approach to climate change, peak oil, sustainability, better wealth distribution, better education and skills training, better respect for the law, etc, etc??

With the likes of Costello supporting a republic, I would be particularly concerned about just what it might mean. He would be pushing hard for a republican model that “fits into his vision as the next Liberal leader”. He would have a huge influence on moulding it accordingly…which as far as I’m concerned would be a HUUUGE negative.

Costello’s rampant expansionism of economy, population and all things human has surely got to be the worst possible philosophy at this point in time.

The Democrats and Greens would have their input as well. But let’s be realistic; their chances of moulding things would be much less than those of the Lib/Labs and the all-powerful vested-interest business sector.

So I would think that the chances of us getting a better system under a republic are remote and chances of getting a worse system are high.

In theory I support constitutional and republican reform. God knows our system needs it! But we’ve got to make sure that it would be positive reform, or else we should leave it as it is.

A useful post John. I agree with most of it. I am a part of that majority supporting a 'Republic' but of course I voted against the proposal put by John Howard precicely because of the biased way the question was put... set to fail because of his own pro-monarchist bent.

I agree it is time to jettison our links with the 'crown'after all the poms have declared us 'aliens' haven't they.

But we should also take a hard look at our too close links with the USA if we are to become an independent,Democratic Nation.After all, who amongst us want to change into such a distorted caricature of a people's Democracy.

A first step as you have noted is to upgrade and update our political system. What a disgraceful cesspit of liars and enemies of democracy we have ruling our lives.

We have become a Nation ruled by an upper class who rule for the benefit of private capital, privatising our assets instead of streamling them and running them profitably.

Yes, the best way forward is yet to be agreed upon and this process should include all models discussing the benefits in each model in a two stage process that you have enunciated.

As for the necessary leadership; I'm afraid it has not emerged yet so bottom-up discussions should continue to decide just what an Australian Republic will stand for.

Not again! Give it a break. Why do we so desperately need a Republic? Probably another damned academic frothing off bubbles. Let us fix the things that are wrong with Australia before spending millions to make silly people happy.
Perhaps when the Queen goes may be the time to visit this subject.It is not needed now.

At least in the lead up to Federation there was a genuine attempt at nation building. If we gave in to another referendum to rework the Constitution all that would happen will be an attempt by dominant groups and major parties to entrench their power to the detriment of democracy. A right-wing, insular and divisive Australia is not an era in which to revisit the country's principal document. It really ain't broke so I will be voting against change.

To those who say it failed the first time and there's no interest, I say you're wrong.

The model that was put up by Howard wasn't an attractive option.

I want a republic, but I voted against that model. In putting up that flawed plan, it effectively hobbled the movement and split the issues into three camps - opposed, in favour, and in favour but with a better model.

Even those who were pusing for that republic, by and large, wanted a different one.

I tend to agree it isn't an issue that should be of foremost concern and posters have made good points, but I reject the assertion that at that last vote, Australians made a clear choice to reject a republic. It was sabotaged from the beginning.

If it ain't broke,why fix it. What good would it do to become a republic?Billions more dollars down the shute,for what?Let's get real here.

I am a staunch republican and would love to see Australia have it's own head of state.

We had an opportunity when the referendum on this issue was held. Thanks to good ol' Malcolm "I know better than most Australians" Turnbull and his stubbourness we missed the opportunity.

Little Johnnie "divide and conquer" Howard did exactly that because neither the direct citizen vote model nor the let the pollies decide model was accepted. I think it showed no-one trusts politicians but I can't quite recall. Malcolm sure failed us all with that little misadventure!

Now is NOT the time to revisit this issue as we DO have much more pressing issues to deal with than becoming a Republic. Have people forgotten that we are involved in an illegal war in Iraq.

I too am sorry that I would have to declare our head of state to be "The British Queen" if I was asked... but really the Royals are a total irrelevance to me anyway and as I am unlikely to be asked it's no real biggy.

The Republican debate will never be properly advanced whilst we have John Howard, Malcolm Turnbull et al in charge of things... so why waste the money?

If you don't read so-called women's magazines you probably won't hear much about our head of state anyway... Hey a reason not to buy so-called women's magazines. Not reading those is bound to raise IQ's a point or two!

Knowing our luck Howard would become President after being booted out of office... Now that would be ironical and he would have the lack of principles to probably accept the position!

Goodness me! Why fight amongst ourselves. What the heck's wrong with you people. Grow up. We have our own anthem - why not our own Head of State. Is it only me - or didn't anyone else cringe - when John Howard had to go and ask the Governor General's permission to hold an election? Does it not bother anyone that the Governor-General (on the Queen's behalf) signs all laws passed by Parliament (Royal Assent). He signs delegated legislation (regulations) and approves the appointment of ministers, senior judges and other officials.

It's time we stood on our two feet - we're old enough to cut the apron strings. But I guess that won't happen - wishful thinking on my part. I keep forgetting - "The bigger the hat, the smaller the property."

“Is it only me - or didn't anyone else cringe - when John Howard had to go and ask the Governor General's permission to hold an election?”

I certainly didn’t cringe Foxy.

In fact I am not the slightest bit concerned about that sort of thing. Afterall, it is just formality. It really isn’t a significant part of our political process.

It doesn’t worry me one way or the other as to whether we hold on to this sort of tradition or whether we move on from it. What really worries me is the sort of governance we might end up with if we decide to have a republic and major constitutional reform.

I share caterine’s concerns;

“If we gave in to another referendum to rework the Constitution all that would happen will be an attempt by dominant groups and major parties to entrench their power to the detriment of democracy. A right-wing, insular and divisive Australia is not an era in which to revisit the country's principal document.”

The sort of doctrine espoused by Costello, or the Libs and Labs in general, would be bound to prevail, which would be an unmitigated disaster.

However, if we were to leave it for a while, until the principles of sustainability; including balance and limits to growth amongst various other things, became entrenched in the general community and the business community, then we would probably achieve a much better system of governance than we have now.

You monarchists are really having a laugh. The whole referendum issue was expertly handled by howard. He knew he could effectively split the vote by demanding that a particular constitutional model was put forward. It would have been much fairer to have had a preliminary plebiscite which asked whether Australians wanted a republic at all. There was overwhelming support for a republic but it was split down the middle between the parliamentarian and direct election models. Howard used this fact to split the vote. So for those monarchists who actually thought they were in the majority, wake up. It was just another Howard scam.

Demos, mate get a life. Where on earth is there a democracy that meets your absurd definition?

The French achieved change towards Liberty Equality & Fraternity around the time the poms were populating Australia with convicts.

Perhaps the revolution was given it's impetus as a result of the American War of Independence which finished in 1789 when they kicked George the third rex out.

A century later,as convict migration to Australia ceased and free settlers started coming in greater numbers, The Americans fought a Civil War to establish their present 'democracy' or 'presidential dictatorship'

Australia on the other hand has not had it's revolution ..yet.
It is said that Australians are not passionate enough to value their freedoms that they will get out in the streets but given the problems we are facing within the next few generations with environmental degradation & Global warming we might just find the courage to stand up for change to a more egalitarian society.

I disagree with John Warhurst's opinion that Republicanism is back on the agenda. The failure of the trendy left's favourite "Three R" agendas (Republicanism, Refugees, and Reconciliation)all flopped badly, which indicates public opposition and distrust of the brahmin caste and their fashionable causes.

However anachronistic a monarchy may be, it is still very popular with the masses as evidenced by the near obsessive behaviour of many people with Princess Diana and Princess Mary. The pageant, pomp and circumstance of Royal occassions still evince a tumultuous popularity, while no women's magazine would be complete without speculations about Royal scandals.

On the political level, this issue is primarily about people who wish to destroy the Australian identity by severing out links to our British heritage. The idea is that nationalism and racism are the cause of all war, so if we want war to be extinct forever, then nationalism and racism must be treated as the two new "Seven Deadly Sins."

With British heritage and identity destoyed, Australia will then be free to head off into whatever peaceful multicultural utopia is its destiny.

More sensible minds might remember that the most desirable destinations for immigrants are those with British heritage. The rule of thumb for prospective migrants has always been to head for the place where they speak English.

So any mind which has already been inoculated to the virus of empty Socialist social promises would question why any sane person would want to destroy that heritage and head off into yet another ghastly "year zero" social experiment?

'words, words, words everywhere, but not a fact to read'...yep pun on water everywhere but not a drop to drink...

Does anyone one know what form of republic the referendum sought...there are numerous forms...even more subdivisions...and we need to know...and yes I think by now everybody knows our head of state comes from our elected own...not sure what benefit this is over the queen without xolutions other current major deficiencies clearly stated before referundum is sought...

For example in republic, will administration of our 'government' remove 'crown the corporation' currently holding tender of the job, and bring it to common person control and accountability?

or will judiciary have its enormous protection removed and have duly proper 'common commissions' (unlike the royal commissions we have now) to expert review performance...and when should this happen eg when numbers of or severty of complaint by common people who had their rights varied by same judge...currently if you dont agree with 'decision' then appeal to higher court and on...but who pays the escalating costs...yep you do...in hope you may win...which removes lot of common people with merited cases loosing out on 'fair outcome' at lower court

or will parliament have areas to which they can legislate clearly addressed eg common people owned health sector, vital services like water, electricity, roads etc cannot be removed without national referendum...so any loss making public entity must be managed back into effective cost/effect range...and accountability linked closely to all acts using public power...

eg dept of child prot...is becoming a joke...sure minister has accepted one case where department let down a child...but are we going to see accountability, which is linked to use of public power, followed on and the case workers who worked on case fully investigated and proper consequence attributed to them...or usual silence...and reality is same case workers continue doing what they do...leaving children in harms way...confident they are 'safe'...balance is needed

www.aph.gov.au is useless for information on republic...those in the 'know' couldupdate wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_Australia then ask them to close off edits...maybe we might have a better idea of real issues being considered...

Sam

A republic would be an out and out PLUTOCRACY. Rule by the rich and swelled headed. Just take a good look at certain pro-republicans in Canberra today!

We have already seen Howard effectively take Australia to the brink of a plutocracy. Rule by the rich is now very on-the-nose. Howard's punishment for that obscenity is forthcoming.

Ultimately, if Immigration is not stopped and PEAKOIL is not forthrightly dealt with, this nation will descend into a slave and master race Republican's dream. Probably within a decade. But the fabric of our society will be so weak and diluted by foreign immigrants of questionable loyalty that Federalism will be putched by foreign interests already buzzing in all our capital cities.

Although our leaders are rich, they are clearly stupid, we are equally as stupid if we don't take to the task of voting them out of office with much more fervour and replacing them with pragmatists who have a better understanding of science and WORLD history as well as the law and Australian history.

Please try and get you facts right, TINMAN. You are not an alien in England. In fact, you can vote in elections and stand for Parliament, which is more than a newly arrived UK citizen can do here. True, you do have to go through the non-eu queue, just as UK citizens coming here cannot go through the Australia-NZ queue. So what? I cannot see what case that makes for a republic. The case against I have given above.

Oh dear Plerdsus, I think you're stretching the truth a bit here. As a Commonwealth citizen you're entitled to vote in the UK, if you're a resident. To become a resident you need a visa. To get a visa you need a UK parent or grandparent for an Ancestry Visa (or be under 30 for a temporary Working Holidaymaker Visa). Otherwise, it's a Work Permit (if you've managed to snare a job) or the Highly Skilled Migrant Program. In other words, more or less the same arrangement as here in Australia.

The Germans and Italians (and anyone else with an EU passport) who scoot past the Aliens queue don't need a visa and are automatically granted the right to work, unlike most of us Aussies. Mind you, if you're an Aussie with a Bulgarian or Finnish passport, no worries, you'll be right.

"Please try and get you facts right." Indeed, Plerdsus, indeed.....

To say that now is the time for an Australian head of state is laughable. After too many years of Howard, the years of Keating (I didn't mind him, but I know many of you did) and so on, who would you trust?

Australians don't trust their leaders. After so many lies in this decade, so many disappointments, no economic surplus, no glitch in the stock exchange will manipulate our minds to actually trust a leader.

This is the time when the argument for an Australian head of state has hit its lowest since Federation. Before Federation, no Colony which became "States" trusted each other. Now, after Howard, we can't even trust ourselves with a vote.

Hold back, take a deep breath, and try to see the situation logically.

Why is it that Australia Day celebrates a penal colony and bondage? We don't celebrate Emancipation day when NSW was no longer a convict colony. Why?

You want leadership and control? Most just want freedom and fairness. Then the leaders earn our trust.

The real reason that monarchists get wound up at the suggestion of another referendum is because they know Australia is a hair's breadth away from becoming a republic - if the process isn't reduced to a farce by monarchist politicians.

It was the convoluted choice between "models" that got the thumbs-down last time, not the republic. That's why, when polled on the simple question "would you like Australia to be a republic", Australians ovewhelmingly respond "yes".

as with any movement of a political nature...

"WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME" is the key to understanding it.

"Lets have a republic".. and I ask.. 'why' ? "what's in it and for who" ?

The same applies to the monarchists.

I suggest that at the cutting edge of any major political movement there is an unspoken agenda. That agenda will ALWAYS be 'portrayed' as something which should be attractive to large numbers of people... because change requires votes.

SO... I raise the question "WHAT'S IN IT?"

I agree with Boaz.What do i personally get when we become a republic?
Will i be better off financially?Will i get better health care?Will housing be more affordable?Will we have better politicians,that don't tell lies and work for the good of the middle as well as upper income earners.If nothing is gonna change except how we vote and what we call whomever is in charge,Why would we even bother.A new flag,a president and being called a republic won't change a bloody thing.

Well, um, yeah…….of course!!

Anyone who wants change simply coz they think we need to break traditional ties with Britain has got to be a drongo. Any change in our governmental methodology has GOT to bring us significant improvements. And therein lies the great problem, because the powers that work towards making our current system as dodgy as it is will hold great sway in shaping any new system.

Please see my two previous posts.

Johnj,

I don't understand your argument. Of course you have to be a resident to vote in UK elections. As far as I know tourists are not permitted to vote anywhere in the world. So you have to get a visa to settle; so does a UK citizen coming here to settle, you going to Canada to settle, etc.

The point I was making was that new UK residents here have fewer rights than new Australian residents in the UK, so I cannot see how this comes into the republic debate.

Responding to BOAZ_David's pertinent suggestion of "what's in it for me", I would like to add "what would I lose".

One of the principal things I would lose is the excellent morality check that we now have in the Constitution. At the moment, under Section 42 of the Constitution, every senator and member of the house of reps must, before taking his/her seat, swear or affirm that they will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty. As far as I am aware, there has NEVER been a case where a newly elected member has announced that he will be unable to take up his seat because he can't subscribe to the oath of allegiance. When all the hard-core, committed republicans get up each three years and subscribe to the oath, I am able to make a judgment, as to whether they are being truthful, honest and sincere, or whether they are lying in their teeth.

Is it any wonder that politicians are despised to the extent they are.

Look, it is about time that those (Including John Warhurst) who are promoting a “republic” got themselves some proper education as to what the Constitution is about. Perhaps, he might just discover that there is no preamble in the constitution at all! At least not that I can locate in it.
The Constitution is chapter 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) a British act which has a preamble, but Section 128 referendum in the Constitution only allows to amend Chapter 9 items, as such not the preamble. Neither can a referendum accomplish some “republic” as again this is beyond a Section 128 referendum powers.
As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I notice how people like Malcolm Turnbull (ARM) and many others are as I view it seeking to brainwash the people in such nonsense.
See also my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and my website at http://www.schorel-hlavka.com.
The monies wasted on the 1999 republican referendum could have been far better used otherwise.
“Professor” John Warhurst why not read up on the material I published and then I challenge you on a debate about the republic nonsense! The same I challenge you on the monarchy nonsense.
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear the constitution does not make the Commonwealth of Australia a dominion, republic, monarchy or empire but it is a “POLITICAL UNION” (A s like the European Union) and they also made clear it was beyond constitutional powers to alter this.
When you have a leaking roof you do not change the name of the property hoping that it might fix your leaks. You fix the darn roof! Likewise, the problems we have with politicians, etc, robbing taxpayers blind and misusing the monies is what should be attended to! We are constitutionally and remain to be so "Subjects of the British Crown". Not even a section 128 referendum can alter this, let alone politicians or judges, regardless what they pretend otherwise!If you do not even understand and comprehend this then why not first learn what we are really?

Here we are having someone, yet again, pursuing a republic where we cannot even manage to hold proper and valid elections.
In 2001 I challenged the validity of all writs on constitutional and other legal grounds, and so likewise in regard of the 2004 purported federal elections. On 19 July 2006, after a 5-year legal battle, the Court ruled in my favour.
Now, again, see my blog, the Australian Electoral Commission deceived everyone by using incorrect timetables and all writs again having been issued defectively as well as a lot more is wrong.
Why on earth argue about becoming a republic when we cannot even manage to hold valid elections?
Look how unconstitutionally and unlawfully we invaded Iraq on the say so of John Howard disregarding the fact that only the governor-General (and no other person) could authorise this by gazetting a DECLARATION OF WAR. This never occurred.
And only the Governor-General can publish in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF PEACE to end war mongering. This never occurred.
Whatever you might be professor in I would recommend you do try to comprehend what the Constitution really stands for as people might currently even accept you know what you are talking about! Now surely we wouldn’t want to create that impression, would we?

Honestly, because you media types are so cocooned in your bubble you just have no idea how most people feel. this issue is the classic example of the elite-popular divide in this country. there's no interest in this. it would be a total waste of money. Shut up.

If most of you dont care, this is absolutely fine. You are not the real enemies of this countries individuality. It is those that wish to see Australia not be a unique country but merely a carbon geographically-seperate (inferior of course) copy of Britain. Australia in the minds of so-called Australian patriots should seem as a superior country as any patriots country does in other nations. If I were a millionaire/billionaire I would pay all the costs for a new independance campaign. I dont even care if we become a independant monarchy, or even less I dont care if we get one of the young royals to take over as the first resident king. But to say its ok to have a monarch on the other side of the world is the same as saying Australia is not as worthy of being ruled properly and directly. I am proud of my motherland Australia, but I am not proud of how some of my so-called fellow countrymen are trying to put her down, YOU SHOULD HAVE MORE RESPECT AND PRIDE IN YOUR NATION!! Australia in the dreams of those who really care for her shall always live...

I was not going to bother to post on this issue until I found that John Warhurst is chairman of the Australian Republican Movement and he is obviously not playing the devils advocate. It would have been far better if he had disclosed his real position instead of coming across as an academic putting forward a discussion paper.

For thoses pro-repiblicans that want to blame John Howard for the loss at the referendum, I recall that JH made his views clear at the beginning and took no further part in the debate. He gave us a referendum on the preferred model by the pro-republican movement.

The costs involved in becoming a republic are substantial. A referendum would cost about $100 million. A second referendum about another $100 million. Then there is the costs of changing. This could well run into billions. Added to this is an extra election each 3-4 years to elect a President on top of the elections we now have. That position seems to be the preserve of the rich. All to what end?

Becoming a republic would not be of benefit, except to provide a short lived warm and fuzzy feeling for some. Our hospitals would still be the same, kids would still be abused, still transport problems, DOCS the same. Not one real and practical benefit would flow from becoming a republic.

The pro-republicans need to put forward a model that gives us advantages, which they have not been able to do.

What about a model that gives greater electoral democracy by doing away with compulsary preferential voting or gives proportional representation in parliament. Or protects our interests by the introduction of Citizen Initiated Refenda. If we are to go to the trouble of changing we have to have some real benefits.

aussie_eagle2512 how can you respect the country of birth if you ignore its laws? To me you sound more like a terrorist who desire his/her own thing regardless what is lawfully permissible and those who do not agree you attack.
You were born under British rule and you may not like it but then there are ways to address these issues. Taking on that people simply have to accept your line of taking the law into your own hands isn’t going to work. Neither of unconstitutionally seeking to tamper with the Constitution.
As in any society there are people against certain things while others are in favour. You do not go about trying to dictate people that you are either with us or against us rather that you seek to get some consensus as to what might be the appropriate legal way to achieve what all may desire.
Personally I have little to no respect for the British royal family, but still constitutionally they are our monarchy. We were federated under the British Crown. Those who do not like this simply have to then pursue ways to try to bring about a change that is lawfully permissible.
However, before seeking to bring about a change do first consider all possible consequences that may eventuate with a change.
Most people complain about things they do not like and want to have a republic, not realising that the issues they complain about has nothing to do with a republican issue but relates to abuse and misuse, etc, by parliamentarians and if there was a change to a republic then no longer can you fall back on the constitution that it is not permissible because it will be taken that when becoming a republic all “conventions” were therefore part of becoming a republic. Hence, be warned about doing it on ill conceived reasons.
.
Banjo; On 19-7-2006 the Court upheld my right to refuse to vote, see my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

I've written this in another post earlier - but I think it might be
useful here as well:
"Australians all, let us rejoice,
We've got a British Queen.
The laws that govern our brown land,
By Her are overseen.

'The day has come,' some people said,
For us to be True Blue.
It's time the old girl packed it in,
It's making us askew.

'Get rid of her?' few cried agast,
'Whatever will we do?'
'Don't worry mate, we'll be just fine.'
'The Yanks are coming through!"

Great post, Banjo

A royal family can have considerable moral authority and doesn't owe its position to the politicians or the corporate elite. Thanks to chance and the hereditary principle, decent human beings are occasionally thrown up. This has great potential to embarrass the politicians. I suspect that some of our politicians who call themselves monarchists might have different views, if at Federation we had done like Norway and started our own royal family, perhaps based on a younger branch of the British royal family.

Royalty - is to Britain, what Disneyland is to the USA. A great
tourist attraction! When the British people were asked recently whether they wanted to keep the monarchy, whether it was relevant to
Brtain - the majority replied - "Yes, it brings in the tourists."

As for us - in Australia? What would the advantages be of a Republic?
Hmmm, let's see. To be totally independent of Britain might mean that
our own Head of State will sign our own laws passed by Parliament.
That our own Head of State will approve the appointment of ministers, senior judges and other officials. That our own Head of State will sign delegated legislation (regulations) and perform ceremonial duties.

A start has already been made by introducing an Australian "Honours"
list instead of maintaining the previous British one.

Our currency is in dollars instead of pounds. We've got our own National Anthem - why not our own complete identity? Get rid of the
Queen's portrait on our currency. Teach the real history of this country - not the British version. Remove the Union Jack from our flag - showing our subserviance to Britain. It's time we came into our own - we no longer accept British conficts. We're gradually making a break from Britain - why not do it totally by becominga Republic?

If we break with the symbolism of catering to the monarchy - it will be a great financial saving as well. Why do we need a Governor General? (who officially can depose our freely elected Prime Minister). And, perhaps in the future our Prime Minsters will be able to enter Buckingham Palace through the front door - and not the Tradesmen's entrance. And Royal visits - won't be paid for by our tax payers

Unfortunately Foxy a lot of what you say people find irrelevant, people dont care about Australia, they care about what Australia does for them. But if anyone insults British heritage then suddenly they become defensive, the integrity of being British is more important than the integrity of being Australian thats what it comes down to. They believe Australia is and should remain inferior and Australia self-respect is not worth paying for. This is spitting on the worn boots of our nation, and I will never stand for it so long as I live. I and probably many other people out there are as proud of Australia and its achievements as any of the most patriotic people of the nations. Just as it looks like we may be turning into a nation, they internationalise us.

The author’s main argument is that we need a republic because the opinion polls say that is what most Australians want. Let’s look at this use of statistics.

If asked, about two thirds of Australians would say they prefer chocolate ice-cream over other flavours. Does that make chocolate ice-cream an election issue?

People saying they would theoretically prefer chocolate ice-cream, or a republic over the monarchy, when asked on an opinion poll, is not in the same realm as realistically achieving constitutional reform.

Have you ever played sport with someone who refused to admit that they were beaten fair and square? Meet someone from the ARM.

Ice creams also dont get a mention in the constitution and dont determine under which system our whole executive, legislative and judiciary is run under, in practise or not.

For years John Howard has largely successfully managed to get this issue swept under the carpet and has taken advantage of the ignorance of people on this issue. It is like saying that Australia should never continuously develop its own culture because culture doesn't influence interest rates, or health and education. To become a republic would be to make a cultural advancement and a statement that we no longer are British at heart. Its not like $100+ million will be spent on such things all the time, one referendum for a republic is one referendum. Of course, I hope they choose the right saught of republic, not one largely established by the interests of party politicians.

If it is deemed that its in the best interests of stable governance to remain a constitutional monarchy, then it must be that we get a royal from elsewhere to be the first king/queen of a independant Kingdom of Australia, rather than sticking with a personal union that doesn't provide Australia with any strategic spoils as was the traditional cause for such unions.

aussie_eagle, what a great idea! There are lots of royals about who no longer have a country. The Greek royals come to mind.

We are a country of immigrants, we want our own head of state, we like the pomp and splendour of royalty, lets offer immigration to interested royals, perhaps as a migrant with 'special skill' and clean up Kirribilli house. We'll all be happy and will never have to even think of a King Charlie and Queen Camilla.

As a welcome we could present a tiara, the first piece of the Nation's crown jewels, made of our very own rare West Australian diamonds.

Well the main reason for bringing it up was yes mainly so we could settle the main issue with the republican debate, and that is to have a Australian-resident for our Head of State.

There would be the rebuttal though that a monarchy, especially a intentionally created one is a out-dated ideal from a previous era and the populace would need to get use to the new monarchy which could prove more difficult than some might realise.

A simple law could be modified in that instead of our monarch not being allowed to marry a Catholic, he/she not be allowed to be born in the UK therefore forcing a change of monarch, probably by the Queen abdicating the throne of Australia.

But this aside as its mainly a last resort, a democratically-elected head-of-state would probably be the most ideal system of government for Australia.

Precautions should also be put into place to ensure that the head-of-state is never a party politician (by forcing them to give up membership to political parties if they are a member of one) and that their function is clearly distinctive and above that of the government.

Many people don't want a republic because they'll miss the pomp & ceremony of a monarchy, but we can still have ceremonials in a republic. e.g. the president will have a flashy inauguration (I suggest it be televised live on TV), he'll wear white & tails with full decorations, he or she will be grand master of the Order of Australia of course. And what if our president is a young bachelor who marries in the middle of his term? I'm sure that'll warrant the cover of a few glossy magazines!

We certainly don't need a republic.

What we do need, however, is a system whereby the Prime Minister cannot be voted out of his position by his party until the end of the term for which he was voted in as Prime Minister by the people.

For it is clear that most vote for a party by virtue of whomever the party nominates as candidate for Prime Ministership.

The "Australian as Head of State" is a false appeal to patriotism: those who coined it could not care less whether the Head of State is Australian or Martian. Rather, all they want is to get rid of an authority who cannot be bought. For it is too difficult to buy off someone who is the richest woman in the world, and who couldn't care less about party politics, and who lives across the ocean.

The "Australian as Head of State" also comprises false logic: the Queen, being Head of State over Australia, is by definition, Australian. She is also English, no doubt, but she is Australian too.
And if she wanted to live here tomorrow, she could do so without need of anybody's permission. Accordingly, it is ridiculous to imply that Crown land, being part of Australia, is owned by a Crown which is not Australian.
The Queen is English. She is also Australian.

We do not vote for a Prime Minister, as he is the one who the Governor-General chooses. Generally the leader of the party in power.
The Queen is not head of State of the Commonwealth of Australia and never was. The Queen neither was ever head of any of the colonies (now States). She is and remained to be the head of State of the United Kingdom and we are by this living in dominions (the States) subjects of the Queen.
.
We cannot change the preamble because it is not a part of the Constitution to which Section 128 referendum power lies. Neither so how the Queen deals with matters and who she married.
How to lawfully create a REPUBLIC has been set out in details on my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH .
.
Those who desire an independent Commonwealth of Australia certainly should not listen to the nonsense of the Australian Republican Movement or the Monarchist as neither has a clue what really is applicable and how it changes everything.
.
We have seen how John Howard unconstitutionally authorised a armed invasion into IRAQ and that for the illusive WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
Constitutionally only the governor-General has this power and refused to exercise this!
.
Now those who like to place in hands this kind of powers in a prime minister obsessed with power may have to think twice as it might very well be that some nation one day may decide to give us the same in return and invade us and bomb us back into the stone age and with the compliments of those who were our victims in the past.
.
If you desire to change, then at least do it for the right reasons and not ridiculous excuses

Gerrit, you are right. The problem though is that very, very few Australians know much about their Constitution or what relevance it has on our political and legal process.

But surely, discussing whether Australians want to sever links with the British monarchy and become an independent republic is legitimate? Discussion will only improve knowledge. Surely that can only be a good thing seeing we are regularly being told that 'our way of life' is worth fighting and dying for.

If the majority of Australians do want a republic I think it could only be a good thing because it will give us a chance to rewrite our constitution in a much tighter fashion and determine which of our many 'conventions' so important to many things we take for granted we want to spell out. Not many Australians realize how loose our Constitution really is. It will also give us a chance to debate without hysteria whether a Bill of Rights along with a Constitution has a place in our nation.

Of course not all democracies have a constitution, Great Britain being an example, so do we need a constitution at all? Why do we need to keep our constitution? Many would say Yes, but it is important to articulate why this is a good thing. Ideally without too much emotive language, just facts on which rational opinions can be formed.

Indeed some very funny things have been stated by both Republicans and Monarchists, but I think there are two issues at hand. One the importance of having our own Head of State to represent the nation Australia, two, the political/legal implications. Both are important issues to think about and discuss in a mature democracy. After all, it is related to the whole notion of nationhood and what it is we actually want to 'protect'.

Yvonne,

The issue is not if people can debate it but rather that they should place some sensible arguments before us.
Unless people present what they deem is wrong with the current system and what they seek to do about it we are basically getting people to go crazy about wanting to be a republic without even grasping what it is about.
For example, currently the Commonwealth of Australia is no more but a POLITICAL UNION, and if you are going to make it a REPUBLIC then it will change the legal system also. Currently, there is a certain requirement of funding of States, but if you are going to make it a confederation then you could end up that some States might end up getting less financial return and others will get more pending how politicians decide to spend the monies. The commonwealth has currently no constitutional powers to place anywhere nuclear reactors, but if we become a REPUBLIC it could simply dictate and nothing you could do getting one, so to say, in your backyard.
Currently (constitutionally) the armed forces are prohibited to be called out against protesters, but with a REPUBLIC those kind of limits no longer apply. I published on my blog “How to lawfully create a REPUBLIC” and it indicates it cannot be done within Section 128 of the Constitution!
It is like wishing it rains and then you get flooded and your house is being destroyed by it. People wishing for a REPUBLIC or being independent may not realise how this will end up in reality.
What is needed is a proper investigation as to what a REPUBLIC will amount to and what changes there will be to the State’s powers and other legal provisions, etc.
The Queen never was "Head of State" of the Commonwealth of Australia as we are under the Crown as the States remained to be dominions! If people do not understand this then they better learn this first!

It would appear from all these arguments, that rather than dispute endlessly on either side we should simply have a member of a royal family transferred here to be our new monarch. No change to the constitution whilst our head-of-state would be Australian.

Anyone who in fact believes that our monarch must be that of the UK must be bonkers.

Gerrit, you did not make a sensible argument why this should not be discussed either and why changes cannot be made to our Constitution. I disagree with you that many do not realize that a change from a monarchy will mean changes. That is the whole point. It is also a fact that throughout our history since Federation several Acts have been passed to strengthen Conventional practices creating greater and greater distance between the authority of the Australian Federal Executive and the UK. Especially so in 1985 and 1986. Up until then, theoretically the UK parliament could legally legislate for Australian States. These changes have been made without the sky falling in. The UK parliament, with Elizabeth as her head, no longer has any legal power to safe us from ourselves.

Meaning, that if the Federal Government wanted to build a nuclear power plant in your back yard it could do so right now if it could convince parliament to pass the necessary legislation authorizing it to do so and on challenge by the States is upheld to be constitutional by the High Court of Australia. Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) is a precedence set on far rockier ground than a nuclear power plant would be. We just ratified Kyoto remember.

So the issue about becoming a republic is not about independence. We are independent and becoming increasingly so. That is why it is no longer appropriate for us to have a Governor-General representing the British Queen enacting any Australian legislation. What is wrong is that it does not acknowledge the gravitas of our actions as citizens. For some it appears to afford a weird kind of false safety blanket.

aussie_eagle2512 You do not seem to understand that even to get a member of the royal family to the commonwealth of Australia to be a Monarch would drastically change the entire legal system.
Currently the Federal Government only can deal with legal matters for which they were given powers. Obviously they are pushing to be independent so they can get more power! If there was no “power” reward for them they would not push for it.
Every time the politicians seeks something you can bet your bottom dollar it is to rob us from our rights!
.
The Commonwealth of Australia is not a dominion, kingdom, empire or a state but merely a “POLITICAL UNION” between the States.
.
See also my blog; http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH .
As I always state; “We either have a constitution or we don’t.” As such, “We either have the rule of law or we don’t.”.
As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I see no validity in the Australian Act 1986 or other garbage they are trying to shove down our throats.
The moment you accept the nonsense they give you then you have caved in to be robbed of your constitutional rights and you have accepted DICTATORSHIP.
I may not be impressed with the British royals but constitutionally they are the Crown and if we don’t like it then it is for the “people” to change it and not that politicians/judges bit by bit are robbing us of our constitutional rights without we having any say in it.
Again, read my blog!