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.