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...