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.