1999 Referendum:
Question 1:
<Republic question:
A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?>

The answer was a near resounding NO, with the ACT being solely in favour (surprise, surprise), and with small negatives only in Victoria and the NT.

Why? Could it be that, like myself, the majority did not want a 'President' - withdrawing from the connotations of a Head of State and Head of the Armed Services ala USA, or as in so many instances of 'Republics' whose elected Prime Minister and elected President fail to agree on key issues, occasionally resulting in the 'President' suspending the Constitution or dissolving Parliament.
What powers would the President hold? In my view, the President should hold no greater powers than the GG, and preferably even less power - with only the highest court in the land having the power to dissolve Parliament. (And why should we not retain the title GG?)
How to elect the Pres/GG? Some wanted a country-wide election from a select 'list' of contenders - who were themselves selected by a majority of both houses of Federal Parliament. Others wanted a separate appointed or elected 'body' to select the candidates.
I would be happy with our Fed Parliament appointing the GG, as now.

Question 2:
Preamble question.
The proposed Preamble commenced "With hope in God, ..." - this alone being sufficient to turn many people off, and, with the Preamble being largely self-serving platitudes, a fairly resounding NO result in all States and Territories - and rightly so, IMHO.
TBC>

Why change the flag? We cannot change our history, our heritage - and the Union Jack in the corner of our flag reflects this history, this reality.
Some of course have reservations about this history, and about 'sovereignty' generally, and would like to turn back the clock. Notgunnahappen.

As we embrace our 'Asian' Heritage (of the future)(and from whence our original inhabitants derived) all will become moot anyway - if some idiots have their way - so why worry.

We could be a lot worse off than staying as we are: immigrants from all over (including our originals), and proud of our predominantly 'industrial' European roots and heritage, upon which this great Nation of ours has been built.

We will grow up when we have learned how to stand up on our own two feet for what we truly believe in, for who we really are now, and stop living in a past 'dreaming' illusion, stop pandering to peripheral vested interests, stop selling-off 'the farm' and stop damaging our heritage and our ethos by ill-considered immigration strategies.
If we do not hold onto our true heritage and protect it, it may soon be lost - and our 'name' will have nothing to do with it.
Be careful what you wish for - good friends are hard to come by.

Lexi, "I'm not sure of the point that you're trying to make
with your last post"

You cannot comprehend that other pressing priorities and the cost to taxpayers are relevant?!

If you have any sensitivity for the aged and the many other critical issues for which there doesn't ever seem to be money in the kitty for, why then would you be proposing a change that by any comparison with the very real problems confronting society and government is frivolous?

Dear Saltpetre,

Thank You for your contribution to this discussion.
I shall respond in greater detail - as I am in
a bit of a rush at present - but you've given me
much to think about.

Dear OTB,

It seems that I consistently have to explain
things to you.

All I am doing is presenting a topic for discussion
on this forum.

This doesn't mean that this topic
is my one and only concern, nor does it mean
that I am not concerned about any other issues, nor
does it mean that this particular issue is
the most important issue of the day to me.
It is merely a topic that I thought would make for
an interesting discussion, and for us to get away
from politics for a while.

You seem to have a lot of issues that you'd like
to see discussed. Why then don't you start threads
on issues that are important to you instead of
questioning me about what is important to me.
You would achieve much more if you were to take the
matter into your own hadns. Lots of things are relevant
to me. However, this is the topic that I have chosen
for discussion. This does not mean that other things
are not relevant.
It's not me who seems to have a comprehension problem.

Lexi,

What I wrote was very relevant. You asked if there should be a republican debate. You asked this at a time when the feds have said they cannot fund the basic services government was set up to provide. Also, an election is imminent.

So again I ask you why anyone would waste time and resources on the republic debate when there are so many other crucial matters on the back burner? So no, it is not a debate worth having in 2013 and so soon after the expensive referendum that ruled it out.

Besides the system is not broken so why fix it? Especially where it is the accident-prone 'Progressives' who have stuffed up so much social policy, for instance on family law and de facto marriage, who are chafing at the bit to re-engineer our democratic structure.

Wasn't that egocentric bore Philip Adams once crowned Republican of the Year (2005?).

There are so many other priorities and no money to pay for them.

Dear OTB,

I am currently reading the book I menioned
in my earlier posts launched by Malcolm Turnbull
and Wayne Swan entitled, "Project Republic: Pland
and arguments for a new Australia," edited by
T. Jones and Mark McKenna. And if you can get a
hold of it - it really is an eye-opener.

Anyway, to answer some of your questions Wany Swan
makes the following arguments:

"Why Now? Is this really the right moment?
The Australian republic, it seems, always raises the
crucial question of timing, When? To monarchists
the answer is always "never." To the cautious the
answer is usually "not now," or at least, "not until
Queen Elizabeth's reign is over."

"Others argue that we should raise the issue again only
after the global recession has been conquered once and
for all, and all people can concentrate on the future free
of practical worries. The time may not indeed be right
for an immediate referendum, but I believe that it is
always the right time to argue for the merits of a republic
and prepare the ground for future constitutional change.
The road to an Australian republic is a long one, without
a timetable, and so the journey must continue..."

Wayne Swan points out that the republican debate is about
democratic principle. He asks, "how can it be that in a
modern democracy one of our own ctiizens can never aspire to
be our head of state? How can inherited privilege be the
sole qualification? ... How can we be a trul egalitarian nation
when the humblest and best Australian cannot aim for the
highest office in the land?"

Swan states that, "To me these questions are ultimately
without answer. Just as the argument that "if it isn't
broken, don't fix it" is without merit."

Swan says that, "It's the universal argument of conservatism
that over the centuries has protected aristocracies, prevented
parliamentary reform, and denied the vote to the common
man and woman. It should not now be used to deny Australia
a true constitutional independence."

cont'd ...