Born and bred in the UK I migrated to Australia because it seemed to be a very safe country to live in. The climate helped my decision.
My natural inclination is to maintain the status quo.
Living in the country, I like to live by the adage that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If a Republican can show me how the present system is broken I may change my mind. If the advantages of a Republic can be quantified in real terms, i.e., how it will be to my advantage, I will reconsider. If some of the deficiencies of Republics around the world, Idi Amin, George W. Bush, the host of African republics such as Zimbabwe who have Presidents with very human deficiencies are considered, there must be some huge advantages of which I am unaware.
Last time we were told that our trading partners preferred to deal with Republics. Last time I looked, Japan is a monarchy with a full blown Emperor.
Will someone tell me which Republic it is that has a better standard of living than Australia? Where can you guarantee that you can democratically get rid of a Government? Change a Leader without a bloody coup?
Sorry, Turnbull, Costello and the likes, you have to persuade me that I am going to be better off in the hip pocket before you will have my support.
Again I say. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The author gives no reason why a republic would be better in practice. The argument is that it would be better as a matter of symbolism.

However the least that would be needed to achieve a republic as a matter of symbolism would be to establish the republic in a separate act of the people, a separate declaration of independence and constitution, as it were.

This is because the Constitution of Australia is contained within an Act of the British Parliament. The Crown is one of the constituent parts of the legislative process. Therefore it would not be enough, in effect, to cross out the word "Governor-General" where it appears in the Australian Constitution, and substitute the word "President", because the President would still be deriving his original legal and moral authority from the amended Constitution, and the Constitution would still be deriving its original legal and moral authority from the British legislature which includes the Crown. Therefore to achieve the symbolic purpose of constituting a 'people's thing', it would need to come from a separate act of the people.

However if the purpose is to express the sovereignty of the people, why not cut out the middle man? Barnaby Joyce said, he doesn't need to go to Canberra, he can just vote from home using the internet. Well bully for you Barnaby - so can the rest of us! The excuse for the continued existence of Parliament has now disappeared. Let the law-making power be returned to its origin in the people, and abolish the parliaments.

The Australian psyche is wildly sentimental.

I have seem real passion displayed to preserve cr*ppy old fibro buildings at great expense so as to preserve and display our heritage.

In some cases I feel is is like boasting that your grandmother was a prostitute.

While I have no love for the monarchy and personally have no desire to maintain the ties, my view is that there is little practical difference between what the republicans are proposing and what exists, and once the steps are taken they cannot be retraced.

In another decade there will be a whole new generation, and we can then ask them to decide. Until then we have more pressing issues upon which to spend our time and money.

Australians showed clearly what they thought of the idea of a republic at a referendum. They indicated that they did not trust the pro-republicans nor Australian politicians. There is no sign that minds have changed since that referendum. The fact that those in favour of a republic still drag up the silly idea at regular intervals shows their contempt for the electorate. They are not to be trusted - still!

A republic would be an expensive, dangerous nonsense in a politically stable Australia.

Storm in a teacup in my opinion.

An opinion poll of 1,000 Australians taken in the past couple of weeks shows that:-
• 59% support a Republic, 33% oppose
• 73% favour a direct election for President by the people, 18% favour appointment by Parliament
• 82% of respondents agree that the 1999 referendum failed because wrong model (ie appointment by Parliament) was offered, 9% disagree
• 62% agree there should be a second referendum in the next term of Parliament between 2010 and 2013, 30% oppose
• 59% are uncomfortable with Prince Charles becoming head of state when QE2 is replaced, 28% comfortable.

On Thursday night on TV I saw a story about John Howard attending a meeting of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy where the audience sang the British national anthem. I know people like that. They are the 33%. They think that they are British. They have no allegiance to Australia. They are the type of people who cheered when England regained The Ashes. They cherish the Union Jack in the corner of the Australian flag. They love to curtsey to visiting royals.

They are the sort of people who suffer from constitutional amnesia when they claim that there is good governance in Australia because we have the Queen as our head of state. They forget that in the Queen's United Kingdom a civil war has raged for over 30 years in which more than 3,000 of Her Majesty's subjects died and more than 40,000 suffered terrible injuries. At they very heart of that civil war was (and still is) the Catholic/Protestant religious divide at the pinnacle of which sits the Protestant-only monarchy which forbids anyone of the Catholic faith from becoming monarch.

The simple truth of the matter is that the British monarchy with its inbuilt sectarian hatred and past strong links to the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler (Edward VIII - "Hitler is a great man and the saviour of Europe" and the Queen's Nazi in-laws and nephew Adolf) is incompatible with the Australian values of decency and the fair go.

Australia deserves better. Because we are Australians not South Pacific Poms

the leigh comedy hour: today your favourite far right ideologue pretends concern for democracy...fools nobody of course.

but hey, keep that lighthearted laugh a minute banter coming leigh, we really appreciate your efforts.

Goodonya Peter. It seems absurd to me that a foreigner living far from us has huge powers over our parliament, our laws and our military. I'd much prefer to have an Australian President elected by popular vote from a short list supported by a 2/3 parliamentary majority. Bring it on Kev!

The last referendum was a vote against Howards proposed style of republic that he wanted.
The people want to design their own republic.
The referendum vote should say.
Do you want a republic Yes or no.
If that is posative u work out the type of republic u want.
Howard already had a style of republic which no one wanted.

The phrase "scraping the bottom of the barrel" comes to mind.

>>the British monarchy with its inbuilt sectarian hatred and past strong links to the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler (Edward VIII - "Hitler is a great man and the saviour of Europe" and the Queen's Nazi in-laws and nephew Adolf) is incompatible with the Australian values of decency and the fair go.<<

You imply that the monarchy was pro-Hitler, when the entire country put itself on the line against the Nazis.

I think that is probably the silliest idea I have yet seen on this forum.

If that's the best anti-monarchist case you can muster, no wonder the referendum failed.

I am pro-republic myself. But the stupidity with which the arguments continue to be made - this being a classic example - will keep the monarchists in business ad infinitum.

"We learned that if we are to have success in a future republican referendum then we must follow the people rather than expect them to follow us"

Wow Peter, Greg Barns and I are choking on our humble pie aren't we?
Your sneering tone throughout your article clearly shows you really haven't learned your lesson at all.

After a constricted referendum between a bunch of snotty, pouty, elitist hacks who despised the public's input (along with the input of decent smart blokes like Ted Mack)- and a monarchist- who both ultimately cut out any palatable republic options out of hopes of retaining a monarchy or hoping the masses will be desperate enough to pick the republic YOU wanted, I doubt many people are too excited about another bout of such shameful, dodgy antics.

But I'm sure your new stance of grudgingly trying to 'pander' to the ignorant masses with a few catchy slogans based on vague assumptions of what the public wants (where such assumptions came from I would like to know) will definitely charm the broader public into facilitating YOUR project for you!

But seeing as most Republicans will accept no LESS than a democratically-elected head of state, the only chance of a Republic revival would be if the ARM were abolished and fresh blood of more democratically-minded and less sanctimonious individuals took your place.

But to convince ME- just get rid of the governor general altogether (waste of money) and propose a more democratic and modern constitution for Australia (eg, based on some of those in mainland Europe).

The more the issue waffles about ceremony or symbolism, there more I switch off. And as long as the people pushing a republic staunchly believe Australians will appoint Rove McManus as President (or that being the case, that this is bad compared to the kind of person YOU would pick), I reckon everyone else will too.

Have a REALLY good day!

Hazza

There is one aspect of the republic debate that no-one else has mentioned, and that is this:

I, like many others in Australia, profoundly distrust politicians. When they make a statement, the main thing is the question of tense. That is, have they just lied, are they now lying, or are they about to lie? The recent revelations about Margaret Thatcher telling Gorbachev to disregard what she was saying publicly and not bring down the Berlin Wall is just a case in point.

One thing I love about the Federal Constitution is that section 42 requires all members of Parliament, including republicans, before they can take their seat, to swear or affirm that they will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty. The section cannot be changed by the politicians, it would require the people to change it at a referendum.

This means that we have an ethics test built into the Constitution. As they take the oath I can judge whether they are being truthful, honest and sincere, or whether they are lying in their teeth.

The thing I would really love would be for a new republic referendum to be submitted to the people, with the support of ALL politicians and ALL the media, and for the people to vote NO.

Thats what its all about, if the people vote no so be it.
We have to be given that chance.
The last vote was rigged with howards proposed example of a republic.
Even republicans were saying do not vote in favor of it.
The queen as head of state is out dated. The queen has said it is up to the people of AU to decide.

Why not have a plebiscite and ask the following question.
Which of the following do you prefer as Australia's Head of State?
Number from 1 to 4 (if you wish).
1.The King or Queen of England;
2.The King or Queen of another country;
3. A president elected directly by all eligible voters in Australia; or
4. A president selected by the Commonwealth Parliament.
Let's see what happens. But I guess I haven't allowed for that ignorant minority out there who really shouldn't be allowed to vote.

blair
Why should they be the questions?

Why not:
- do you want to be able to vote, or not, on any and every proposed law?
- do you want to abolish politicians?
- would you like your taxes reduced? If so, by how much? What activities of government should be accordingly reduced or abolished (tick from list showing budgets)

There is not the slighest reason why the question of constitutional reform should take as its starting point the whole system we have now, and ask only whether the head of state should be changed.

Besides, do you agree a republic could not be achieved by amending the existing monarchical constitution, and logically, to achieve its symbolic purpose, requires a separate declaration of independence and constitution?

How come when discussing this issue, we never seem to get around to discussing the most basic elements of the design of the democratic system - separation of powers, and checks and balances?

A well designed republic addresses these features. It will have four key elements. A Parliament, an Administration, a Judiciary, and the Press. Ideally, the head of the Parliament (the Prime Minister, or in the US the Speaker), is separate from the head of the Administration (the President or "The Crown"), the Judiciary is appointed by a process that maximises independence, and the Press will be empowered to hold those in the system accountable. The US Republic approaches these ideals.

If we test the Australia political system from this viewpoint, we find that it breaches fundamental principles of separation of powers and checks and balances.

The PM is head of the Parliament. The PM is also head of the Administration - the Governor General who nominally is head of the Administration is truly nominal. The PM plays a huge role in the appointment of the Judiciary. And in Australia, the Press is constrained from playing a truly effective role in holding those in the system accountable by draconian libel laws, and intense concentration of media ownership.

The only effective checks and balances in Australia occur when the governing party does not hold power in the Senate, which is now (fortunately) the position. Whatever you think of the Independent and Green senators, they do fulfil a useful role in asking tough questions.

The fact is that the Australian PM has incredible power that could be exploited if the wrong person were to become PM at the same time that the government has a majority in the senate.

Why can't we have a discussion about these fundamental issues that are taught in Political Science 101?

Agree Herbert- personally I'm not to thrilled about a multimillion dollar referendum implying constitutional change when it doesn't come close to changing enough of the constitution to actually make our governance transparent and democratic- but instead a name-changing proposition.

I personally will happily vote against every Republic referendum that comes short of a drastic shake up of separation of powers (including for the public).

Phoenix94 and others issue a challenge to Peter’s article, namely what’s broken? In my opinion, there are a few things:
1. When the constitution was written, Australia was a dominion of the British Empire and Australian troops were therefore “imperial troops”, under the command of the Queen (and as advised by Whitehall). (see further Helen Irving’s book, Five Things you need to know about the Australian Constitution). This constitutional “black hole” allowed Prime Minister John Howard to send troops to invade Iraq, without obtaining the approval of parliament, which is supposed to represent the people of Australia, or anybody else for that matter.
2. In an election in the 1990’s, the One Nation Party achieved around 10% of the primary vote for the House of Reps and did not win one seat. Regardless of your political leanings, is it a fair result that around 10% of Australians were not represented by their primary choice of party in the parliament?
3. One of the strengths of the Westminster system is it’s ability to deal with the diversity of public opinion by having political parties represent those strong but often conflicting political ideals of what is “right” & “wrong”. This adversarial system however needs a strong and unaligned “umpire” to counterbalance an elected prime minister who may try and reduce political competition & form a one party state as Hitler and others did, or in the case of a hung parliament, act as an “honest broker” to assist the formation of a new coalition as happens in the Netherlands. I’m not sure the current system could handle either of these stress tests.

The debate on a republican president was fought and lost 10 years ago and perhaps that particular debate should be left to the ghosts of Keating & Howard to continue. We need to face the reality of today’s problems and debate “What’s broken in the Australian system of democracy”, then fix them. Charles Darwin once said, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change”.

I am sure Peter is a decent man but Peter, mate! No one trusts politicians (With good reason) and so you cannot suggest a referendum saying we have a republic. That's the equivalent of offering a blank cheque and no one will do that!
I believe we should have a republic and we should hammer away on the options.
Mine would be the President nominated by the Prime Minister but agreed to be a two thirds majority of the Rep's and the Senate. The PM can sack the President and vice versa with who gets in first as now. The kicker is that either President or PM will be fixed by the people at the next election, just ask Gough Whitlam lol.
I am very hesitant about clever people and their solutions, Hitler was very good at solutions although usually they were not good for the majority.

"I have rarely attended elections in any country, certainly not a democratic one, in which the newspapers have displayed more shameless bias. One and all, they determined that Australians should have a republic and they used every device towards that end. “Bill Deed 1999.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/1999_Australian_republic_referendum

The Australian republic referendum in 1999 was a two-question referendum held on 6 November 1999. The first question asked whether Australia should become a republic with a President appointed by Parliament, a bi-partisan appointment model which had previously been decided at a Constitutional Convention in February 1998. The second question, generally deemed to be far less important politically, asked whether Australia should alter the constitution to insert a preamble. Neither of the amendments passed
The utmost contempt for this articles that so glibly summarizing the real lack of effort made by the Republican Party advocates.
The old adages “if it’s not broke don’t fix it “is the narrow-minded viewpoint of a deluded royalist argument that is about as accurate as it is intelligent.
I would ask what is right about the lack of an Australian constitution not whether it need fixing, but where is it?
The fact is this republic movement was railroaded by a bunch of myopic pussy cats is an undeniable part of history. The government is a total sum of the population and that’s why I am glad to be able to live in a country that listens to all complaints and actually does something about them, The USA. Australia is the biggest political joke since England departed its shores, and that doesn’t imbue much. Its head of government is still lathe queen of England.
For chrissakes!
Wake up you beer swilling yobbos and take control of your country.

The problem with discussions like this is that they are simultaneously too broad, and too narrow.

The question "should Australia become a Republic" would tend these days to be answered in the affirmative by the public at large. If it were a simple matter of flipping a switch, then we would probably have made the transition some time back.

Unfortunately, the details within this broad question are not so easy to present in as simple a form, as was amply demonstrated at the referendum. Knowing this, it was pretty easy to ensure the waters were sufficiently muddy for a "no" vote to be pretty well assured.

But in another sense - illustrated by thomasfromtacoma's somewhat rebarbative post - the question is also far too narrow.

The entire structure of our government may well benefit from a major overhaul. We are lumbered with three tiers, none of which is altogether satisfactory, from the petty grandstanding of local councils, through the horrendous wastage at State level (I live in NSW, so I know whereof I speak) to the inability of Federal government to honour the promises made to the people at election time.

So perhaps the question - maybe as part of the broader "shall we become a republic" debate - should be "what would be a more appropriate form of government for Australia in the twentyfirst century?"

After all, there's no evidence that the present system is the best that can be, and plenty that suggests otherwise.

As an added benefit, this would be a comprehensive response to the monarchists who hide behind the "if it ain't broke" mantra.

Those comments seem a little trite when you consider that electoral fraud is so widespread in the USA that a presidential candidate in 2001 was able to rig an election against the will of the people, while Australia has one of the most stable and accountable electoral systems in the world.

The US has very little to offer Australia by way of improvements to government.

You're quite correct about the value of a republic, though. It's shameful and absurd that a hereditary monarch in another country has the power to dismiss our goverment. That is "broke" and needs fixing.

Moreover, it's embarrassing. Tearfully clinging to a dead empire makes Australians appear as a nation of peasants too subservient and afraid to determine their own destiny.

The same small-minded self-loathing permeates our political thinking. A republic would rejuvenate debate and, hopefully, encourage more Australians to actually think about our politics instead of blindly taking sides.

Lets start with a free transparent press.
Without accurate information we cannot properly judge the arguments of the anti and pro-republic sides.
I'd say most folk would want a republic...but are rightfully distrustful of all politicians. (Lets face it, both parties are more similar than different. Cynicism rules.)
The devil is in the details, and we don't trust the stakeholders to play fair. Howard was the most divisive PM ever so it is no surprise his "culture war" and loose-with-the-truth approach killed the argument. He just ramped up the mistrust...probably deliberately to kill the argument. (He wasn't afraid of phoney wars to get results either!)
Without a free press calling the liars for what they are we cannot safely negotiate a major change. Until the spokesmen of the wealthy are reigned in and called on the propaganda they spout we cannot trust "institutes", "studies" or "experts" even.
We need proper media. Now.

Agree entirely with Pericles- THAT is what I would like to see put forward.

That might be just a little harsh, Sancho.

>>The US has very little to offer Australia by way of improvements to government.<

At County level, the people get to directly elect key executive positions, in addition to the equivalent of our local councillors. Just google a US county at random, and you'll find that they range from Police Chief to Auditor, and usually serve a four year term before having to subject themselves again to the will of the people.

This tends to engender considerably closer connection between the public and their public servants.

It should also not be forgotten that the US operates a voluntary voting system, which we could also usefully learn from. This would probably need to go hand-in-hand with the above, though. It would be embarrassing to suddenly grant voluntary voting powers to a country so disenchanted with its political landscape.

One can only imagine what might happen in NSW if we were allowed to abstain from voting for Nathan Rees or Barry O'Farrell.

There'd be tumbleweed rolling through the deserted polling booths...

That's another major point Pericles- I'm rather dumbstruck by the notion that putting a local representative of a couple thousand people to a seat in parliament- whose function may vary from having zero say in parliament to controlling the entire country- all based on nothing more than an internal random arrangement by the seat-holders of the winning party, is in any way more 'transparent' than electing reps directly into an intended role.

And it would also add a lot more independence from the 'ruling party' if each departmental head was voted in under a separate ballot space- that way you could actually put the appropriate party in a suitable department, instead of just choosing randomly between the best of whichever party got the most votes- knowing that every aspect of governance is done so according to the will of a few major party heads- any departments not on their mind simply being afterthoughts. Plus it means an independent actually COULD run a department- fat chance under our current arrangement.

As for voluntary voting- I'm all for it- tumbleweeds or not- if someone doesn't care, he/she shouldn't be expected to donkey vote. Although some food for thought- perhaps all citizens are compulsorily added to the electoral role- but can opt-out after making at least one vote. (and obviously opt-in at a later point if they so choose).

And there definitely needs to be some thought to reorganizing our hierarchy (local, state, national etc). And of course, shifting electoral access from multiple local/regional seats to a single state/federal paper.

Voluntary voting could leave the door open to corruption, i say.
You should be proud to be called upon to cast a vote.
Wouldn't most people vote for the party and not the individual, as in 123-65.
Compulsary voting is lucky it is not labeled a breach of privacy or a communistic idea.
If voting were optional, you would have people not voting because of the weather, or an offer of a bbq somewhere , or just a good day to go fishin.

I find it hard to believe that any fault can be found in voter’s rights to elect a candidate of their choice whether it is police chief, or mayor.
The pollies are the first to quote you get what you pay for.
The USA model expects performance from its local council and they handle multibillion dollar transactions on a daily basis. Unlike the local councils in oz, that once their budget deadlines are met, figures out ways to travel to fact finding mission in Bali.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26319890-2682,00.html

If one checks the poll results it’s greater than 90% no confidence in the SA police in the attached link
The newspapers of Australia where an article like this gets one days headline then is removed from archive make one think that’s running the country
Australia’s government that couldn’t run a soap box derby, let alone
The financial experience to organize a chook raffle, and is generally totally incompetent when it comes to economies of any scale. so aptly pointed out by Sancho in the loans affair and the dismissal of Gough Whitlam.

"If voting were optional, you would have people not voting because of the weather, or an offer of a bbq somewhere , or just a good day to go fishin."

Yes, because these are exactly the kind of people that would research candidates and vote seriously.
Optional voting NOW!