State premiers and territory leaders call for an Australian republic

State and territory leaders have signed a declaration calling for an Australian republic.

State premiers and territory leaders call for an Australian republic

Seven of the eight state and territory political leaders have signed an Australian Republican Movement (ARM) declaration supporting an Australian republic, meaning there is now almost total political support for the end of the constitutional monarchy.

The declaration they have signed states: “We, the undersigned premiers and chief ministers of Australia, believe that Australians should have an Australian as our head of state.” This proposition, along with a change.org petition signed by over 4000 Australians, were timed for release by Australia Day.

The petition has been signed by all but one of Australia’s state and territory leaders, and the push for an Australian head of state has also been backed by Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten. The only hold-out is Western Australia’s Premier Colin Barnett, who himself believes an Australian republic will happen in his lifetime, but says he “did not think that the time is right to prosecute the argument for constitutional change”.

ARM head Peter FitzSimons says that the almost-unanimous political support for the proposition, which now spans the top two tiers of government, is quite significant.

“We thought what better time to make [the] affirmation of the strength of feeling there is within the 21st century,” said Mr FitzSimons. “2016, it is time to get moving, and I must say I was thrilled by how enthusiastic the premiers were.”

“This is an indication to the Prime Minister,” said Mr FitzSimons. “The significance of this is, if you want the majority of people from the majority of states [to back a republic in a referendum], well, the premiers and chief ministers are behind you. That’s a hell of a start.”

The finer details are yet to be ironed out, such as when and how the switch should be made, but there is a strong push for the process to begin by 2020.

Former head of the ARM Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who led the push for constitutional reform in 1999, has again pledged support for a republic, but stated that there are more important issues facing the nation at present.

“The next occasion for the republic referendum to come up is going to be after the Queen’s reign,” stated Mr Turnbull last year.

The ARM doesn’t deny that there may be more pressing matters with which to deal, but disagrees with the idea of waiting for the end of the Queen’s reign.

Mr FitzSimons has called for a plebiscite by 2020, believing that a national vote for a republic would “romp it home”.

“If you have got the support of all the political infrastructure behind you, there’s no question that you will get the mandate from the people and you will move forward on that,” he said. "Never before have the stars of the Southern Cross been so aligned in pointing to the dawn of a new republican age for Australia."

Read more at The Sydney Morning Herald

Read more at www.abc.net.au

Opinion: Which model do you support?

The push for an Australian republic has been simmering ever since the failed referendum in 1999. Admittedly, back then, the argument for or against Australia becoming a republic was confusing at best, and I couldn’t really see any political leaders of the day as deserving of holding the position of Australian head of state.

Nowadays, with someone such as Malcolm Turnbull at the helm, I can actually see the appeal.

Public sentiment in favour of an Australian republic also seems to be stronger than ever, with the ARM quadrupling in membership over the past year alone. There are also close to 4500 Australians who have an online petition calling for an Australian head of state.

It’s nice to think that we can stand on our own two feet as a country, but what would Australia becoming a republic really mean for Australians? Which model would best suit us as a nation?

A minimalist republic model, as backed by Mr FitzSimons, would be where the Prime Minister selects a Governor-General as head of state, which would then need to be approved by Parliament.

The other model would involve all Australians going to the polls to elect a president of the new Australian republic.

It is widely believed that the 1999 referendum failed because of a lack of agreement on the best model for Australia. These are questions that still need to be answered if we are to move forward with such a proposal.

In the meantime, Mr Turnbull is right to concentrate on the more pressing issues we face as a nation, such as tax, economic and social reform. 

Do you feel it is time we cut ties with the monarchy? Or do you still support the Queen as head of state? Which model do you think would be better for Australia? What do you think Australia becoming a republic really means for Australians?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    margie
    25th Jan 2016
    10:36am
    So let me understand this, when the politicians of the day and/ or blowhards such as this Fitzgibbon guy finish sucking off the public teat they can then become President of Australia and start sucking again. Once again the public will pay and for what? Just what benefit will a President be? We already have a Prime Minister who supposedly leads the country and to think of a political party choosing a President just lends itself to all sorts of rorting. And if the public are to vote every (however many years) on some current popular soap, quiz, or self proclaimed intellectual, I can see the Presidency will be nothing more than a popularity contest. We don't have any problems with the current state of a Queen and the money we pay for her to visit this country will be a drop in the ocean to what we will have to fork out for a President.
    margie
    25th Jan 2016
    10:38am
    I meant Fitzsimons not Fitzgibbon, not sure where I got that from. sorry
    Daffoir
    25th Jan 2016
    10:42am
    1 vote to support the sentiment expressed by Margie.
    PlanB
    25th Jan 2016
    11:34am
    I agree with Margie totally as well
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    11:43am
    Hey Margie their was a bloke named Smacker Fitzgibbon who could sing a bit but I think hes 6 foot under now perhaps you got mixed up with him.
    SuziJ
    25th Jan 2016
    11:55am
    Well said!
    Gra
    25th Jan 2016
    11:55am
    I second, third and fourth margie's sentiment. The only people interested in a republic are pumped up egotistical fools like Peter FitzSimon. His main reason for wanting a republic is his Irish heritage and a strong hatred of anything British. So we are to take note of a purported petition signed by 4,000 people? We are expected to go to a referendum on a republic on the strength of the wishes of .0002 of the population? There are segments of the population much greater in number that have matters they would like addressed by the government but they don't even rate a mention on the back page of the Gloucester Gazette.
    Tom Tank
    25th Jan 2016
    11:57am
    Peter Fitzsimons is an author and former Wallaby he is not on the public teat. A check on the facts would probably be in order.
    Currently the Governor General, who is the Queen's Representative in her absence in Australia, is selected by the Prime Minister. If the P.M. is sensible he would canvas opinion across the spectrum of politics, legal profession and business before making that appointment. A minor modification of this system could work very well of us and give us a Head of State who is not subservient to a foreigner.
    As we have seen however in recent year some of those selections have been embarrassing. Some of our Governor Generals have on the other hand been an inspired choice and served us very well indeed.
    It would be a major mistake to have a popularly elected Head of State and that would a challenge to our system of Government especially if a former politician was elected.
    Surely we should not have a Head of State whose primary allegiance is to a foreign country. It is time for Australia to grow up and stand on it's own feet independent of any other country. We should of course continue to be a member of the Commonwealth and should never forget our heritage.
    Sevi
    25th Jan 2016
    3:58pm
    I too vote for the common sense Margie has written. Have lived and worked in countries with presidents and mostly it's the man with the most money given by supporters that wins.
    What happened to the old saying 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' and YLC have got their knickers in a twist over 4500 wanting a Australian head of state, out of 23 million is that really a good percentage?
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    4:07pm
    Sevi - your reading o the numbers is ridiculous.

    And there is no need to have an election for President. Did you read the article?
    Chris B T
    25th Jan 2016
    4:33pm
    Margie
    We pay an small fortune for the Governor General, staff and residency.
    Then there is Travel By Regal Means (Extravagant)
    That drop in the ocean is A Big Hole that we throw money into.
    Then there is the State Governor's.
    Don't forget we pickup the tab for EVERY ONE OF THE QUEEN'S REPRESENTATIVE.
    ;-{
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    4:57pm
    Noses in Troughs is killing us !! What was once an Honoury job for a Noble of some Description { Don't Swear :-)} now costs us a Princes Inheritance for every single one of them !! :-(
    Big Kev
    25th Jan 2016
    10:25pm
    Margie
    Tom has covered a fair bit of it. It is broke. Every time a Royal comes to Australia e.g. last year Harry plus William and Kate, we the taxpayer have to pay for their all of their travel, their accommodation plus the security guards and police and ASIO. We also are required to contribute to "The Commonwealth Office" in London. This turns into tens of millions a year sucking off the public teat as you call it.
    A president would be cheaper than the cost of a Governer General, as we wouldn't have to pay for multiple residences or State Governers.
    The 4500 is only a petition not the number of supporters. I believe a recent poll indicate support between 60 and 70% although many wanted it to happen when the current Queen shuffled off this mortal coil.
    The ideal model of a President last time around was of one elected by over 70% of both houses of Parliament and at least two parties. This would avoid a single party nominating one of their lackeys but instead a person of standing and quality.
    Rick
    26th Jan 2016
    7:36am
    Totally agree with Margie...
    ex PS
    26th Jan 2016
    10:56am
    I don't mind change, after 20 years in the Public Service I am used to it. But if we are going to change it must be for the betterment of Australia. I am not convinced by the simplistic sentiment of Australia should not have a british head of state.
    Looking at the Republics around the world, including the USA, I can't see how being a Republic will improve Australia.
    I have no problem with becoming a Republic, but I want proof that the country will be better off and that the position of President will not be used as some sort of payoff for political support given in the past.
    I get the feeling that every Queens representative that will be dropped will be replaced with two Presidential staff members, so any idea of saving money will be void.
    It really does not matter if they are the Queens representatives or Presidential staff, they will still be Australians and will still be paid from our taxs.
    I agree with Margie
    particolor
    26th Jan 2016
    9:19pm
    Marie IS Right !
    And it is only Broken at the moment !!
    We will try to send it to Fix It Shop next election :-)
    Prospero
    25th Jan 2016
    10:37am
    So long as we don't lose the heritage of a Westminster based legal system and we begin a Republic with a well considered Bill of Rights.
    Rae
    25th Jan 2016
    2:57pm
    I'm with you Rowena. Unfortunately I don't trust the politicians anymore and if they have any intention of changing the Constitution, which is the only thing protecting me at least a little, I'd want to see a very locked down and legally binding Bill of Rights first.

    It has never worried me that we are a member of The Commonwealth and not a republic. Very few republics are successful after all at maintaining political stability.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    3:10pm
    Oh dear, more ignorance.

    Becoming a republic has nothing to do with being a member of the Commonwealth (many members are republics), nor would it demand throwing away the Westminster system.

    And Rae, your final sentence is simply nonsense.The USA and most European nations are republics. They are politically stable.
    Jim
    25th Jan 2016
    3:19pm
    The downfall of a bill of rights is that it needs to have attached to it a bill of responsibilities and it seems as though that is not possible?
    As far as us becoming a republic I have no problem in fact we are already a republic In everything but name, so I have to wonder what agenda the ARM have, I just hope that we don't have to go through the slanging match that occurs every time we discuss becoming a republic, there should never be any doubt as to our heritage.
    Hobbit
    25th Jan 2016
    3:40pm
    Being a republic is a side issue. What we need is a proper constitution. Ours is NOT the same as the American constitution, look up our constitution on the web. It's rubbish. Our constitution provides little or no rights for the public. It doesn't Doesn't provide:
    The right to a fair trial or appeal
    The right to vote
    The right to free speech
    No right to remain silent
    Rick
    26th Jan 2016
    8:34am
    Barack what do you mean mostEuropean nations are a republic ...Denmark Holland Sweden Norway England Scotland Spain are not . The U.S. Has its royal families In the Kennedy Bush and Clinton line...
    socrates
    25th Jan 2016
    10:37am
    If it ain't broke why change anything?
    MICK
    25th Jan 2016
    11:50am
    How's the calluses on your knees socrates? With a call name like that i am surprised you are a royal butt kisser........... Sorry.
    SuziJ
    25th Jan 2016
    11:55am
    Totally agree !
    SuziJ
    25th Jan 2016
    11:55am
    Totally agree !
    SuziJ
    25th Jan 2016
    11:56am
    Totally agree!
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    12:09pm
    Me too, me too, me too.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    12:25pm
    And one again :-) ..Totally agree !
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    12:25pm
    It is broke,

    On the one occasion the Queen could have intervened in Australian politics, the Whitlam dismissal, she didn't. In fact, it was night time and her staff didn't even wake her up to let her know.

    So the connection IS broken.
    Jim
    25th Jan 2016
    3:43pm
    I see the insults have begun, no surprise that Barak has to be one of the first to start, I don't know where this person gets his/her information from regarding what the queen was doing when Whitlam was sacked at the behest of Frazer and carried out by the Governor General, it was probably the middle of the night in the UK so the queen was likely in bed, so obviously her permission wasn't needed to remove Whitlam from office, proving that the queen can't or doesn't really have the authority to intervene in Australian politics,
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    3:54pm
    Nothing wrong with the Queen, too bad about her husband, BUT she does have nice grandkids. I wouldn't want "Bandana Boy" Fitzy to have much of a say with government as he has credentials for politics and I think it would be just a kudos and money-grabbing stunt for him and his "movement" mates. ("movement", all right, - from the large intestine!) He should stay with his little novels or join a Man's Shed and make bird houses. That's my say. Like it or lump it, as it makes no difference to me.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    4:01pm
    Dim - If the Queen can't or doesn't really have the authority to intervene in Australian politics, why not make it formal?

    Fast Eddie, how about you discuss the message, rather than shooting the messenger?
    JAID
    25th Jan 2016
    4:28pm
    A political system is by nature not perfect or should consider itself so; always addressing the light of a new day.

    it can or should be doing that now. if there are better ways of doing that then lets hear of those but I have yet ot hear a cogent argument put that throwing off the monachy will change a single iota of real value.

    IF that is the case then why would anybody bother about going through the whole costly hullabaloo; listening to everybody and their dog wanting to be guaranteed a beneficial relationship under a new Constitution; developing a whole new mass of checks and balances and with those an even thicker minefield of useless redtape. Sounds more like a talkfext and a popchart quest than a chase after administrative and planning excellence.

    I consider us independent. I consider the monachy a quaint but harmless recognition of the kick-off to a modern Australia.

    If it is a republic we want than well and good the effect of that will look very similar to the effect we currently have. The nature of representation will still be a matter for debate and agreement but I hope nobody foists upon us a hero-worshiping American style republic where money can be the trump card and there are no equals among equals.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    5:50pm
    You're wrong Barak, FitzSimons is a big part of the topic. He is head of the ARM and is quoted extensively. Fast Eddie is within his rights questioning FitzSimons' credentials. Any organisation is only as good as its leader and FitzSimons does not impress me.
    Adrianus
    28th Jan 2016
    1:33pm
    It's broke alright Socrates but I'm not sure we have the solution.
    Idontforget
    25th Jan 2016
    10:41am
    No, I don't believe that we need to become a republic. Nor am I trying to demean anybody that thinks we should. I do believe, however, that all it would achieve would be a 'feel good' atmosphere for a minority of Australians. Four thousand signatures referred to as wanting to become a republic. I daresay that I could get that many signatures for free veterinary treatment for homeless cats.

    To become a republic will cost millions, maybe billions of dollars and this money has to come from taxpayers and this is not a bottomless bucket.

    A vital question to answer is, when you wake up the next morning, what will have physically changed. Nothing except taxpayer money will have to be found to replenish the Treasury coffers.

    What astounds me is that I have questioned many pro republicans in the following vein. "Wouldn't it be better to spend this money on Aboriginal health, homelessness on city streets, the dire straits many elderly pensioners, especially women find themselves in in paying for electricity and gas for cooking and heating". And the answer is "No, but that will come later if we become a republic'. That is purely delusional because it would never happen.

    Until somebody can convince me that I and all other Australians will achieve a higher standard of living by becoming a republic, I will stick with the status quo.
    Idontforget
    25th Jan 2016
    10:52am
    And quickly, that tired old slogan 'An Australian Head of State' reached its used by date in the twentieth century. We are now in the twenty first century. Please, pro republicans, if you want to promote republicanism, come up with some phrase that is current and does not smack of Communist terminology.
    Theo1943
    25th Jan 2016
    10:55am
    The next morning we will have becpme independent. Currently we can't change the speed limit in any street without it going through our WA parliament. When the change is passed,it the requires approval in the form of a signature from the Queens representative. Same for all other things, passed by Parliament, then approved by the Queen. Like telling you teenager he can go out with his mates, but only if grandma OKs it.
    Theo1943
    25th Jan 2016
    11:02am
    So how are we addressing aboriginal health, homelessness and pensioner poverty now. By increasing the GST, cutting welfare , and reducing taxes for the rich?
    MICK
    25th Jan 2016
    11:47am
    Let's get 'king Clive' into the royal gowns. We'll all be proud to bow and scrape won't we.............???
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    12:33pm
    Put another Nickel in !
    In the Nickel Barons tin !! :-)
    marls
    25th Jan 2016
    7:33pm
    Theo1943
    my 3 grandchildren and 1 great grandchild has a lot more access to free health than their brothers and sisters and this includes education
    my daughter had free this and free that for one of her children whilst the other one who is non aboriginal she had to pay for everything
    ozzie
    25th Jan 2016
    10:50am
    FWIW, my opinion is that the elected Politicians, and under our system of Executive Government, those elected are responsible for the decisions that shape our Country (for better or worse!!)....accordingly, it is essential that they "elect" our Head of State - who, as is currently the case, act on the direction of the Executive Government. To have a Head of State elected by "popular vote" will only result in the development of a "Money buys all Presidential" like figurehead. This individual would not enjoy the "confidence of the Government" and could put us in a position of having an elected Executive Government in the House of Reps, an elected Senate, and a President elected by the populous - effectively like the Senate....a recipe for an ungovernable system. In addition to a Republic, I believe we should also alter the election of Senators so it is a House free of Political party allegiances. The whole idea was for it to be a "State's House" to protect the smaller States.....it is a far cry from our Constitutional Fathers intentions. Then we have all the State Governments who act still as remnants of the "Colonial method" of Australia's founding......more "over-government"!! We need to fix more than the simple change from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Republic......and yet there is no reason to "fear a Republic".....Canada, India & other Countries are "Republics" but still part of the "Commonwealth".
    Idontforget
    25th Jan 2016
    10:56am
    Canada a republic???? Absolute rubbish. It is a Constitutional Monarchy, similar to Australian. Wild comments like this will not impress the average Australian. Please, please, pro republicans, rely on FACTS for your argument.
    ozzie
    25th Jan 2016
    12:22pm
    OK!! So I made an error....accepted!! there are other Countries that have slipped out of the Commonwealth....Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, India, Republic of Ireland, India......still a sizable "populus" of Nations....
    fish head
    26th Jan 2016
    3:22pm
    Ozzie... Of the countries that you quoted in your addendum all were established countries in their own right when invaded and colonised by British interests. Of course they slipped out of the Commonwealth when it was in their interests to do so. It has been those countries that have a large central core of British emigrant background that have remained.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    3:30pm
    I reckon you're both on the wrong track.

    Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka and India are all still members of the Commonwealth. They compete in the Commonwealth Games. Ireland is not.

    (Google "commonwealth of nations members")
    Saalbach
    25th Jan 2016
    10:55am
    Regrettably, this issue always seems to be used as a diversionary tactic by politicians who can't solve the every day problems faced by Australians. It is so unimportant that it should be left until problems of caring for the aged and disabled, homelessness, unemployment, social exclusion etc are solved. As someone has already said, the cost would be enormous and the money would be better spent on real problems. Another huge drawback to having an Australian head would be that it would be used to reward former pollies - can you imagine Tony Abbott as Head of State. That would be worse than having him as PM. The current arrangement at least gives us an impartial head, who has no prior political allegiance to any party.
    MICK
    25th Jan 2016
    11:44am
    I have noticed that the economy, jobs for AUSTRALIAN WORKERS, prostituting the tax system so that wealthy Australians can milk it to blazes and Turnbull's Tax Haven have all disappeared from media attention. I wonder why?
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    12:30pm
    More Important things to disgust Mick ! Like El Presidento's :-)
    buby
    25th Jan 2016
    1:13pm
    mE THinks they have opened up another can of worms by taking our minds of the other problems Mick....lol shifty buggers.
    Also i read somewhere they working on putting 15% on Health, and something else......Hell, Me thinks they been hanging with de Yankies too long. Alls being stuffed up. Getting a El' presidento...... won't help much either i'll bet? as much as i'd like one.
    These pollies BEST stay home and save our money instead of wasting our money....They learning too many bad habits, when they roam??
    And at whose expense i might ASK phhhhhhhhht
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    2:45pm
    Our Politics is a game of Whose turn is it for a World Tour with Comforts ? Didn't they give them Scroungers a Telephone ? :-)
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    2:52pm
    I have a solution to you guys being annoyed by politicians using this as a distraction.

    Let's do it.

    It can only be done once, so they won't annoy you with it again.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    5:59pm
    Well spotted mick. If you know the history of the ARM, the current push goes back to 1991 and the reason it got momentum was one Paul Keating. He was a great orator and when he was asked difficult questions in parliament that he didn't want to answer, he usually dropped into the reply that we should change our flag. The opposition had to vigorously defend the current flag so the focus went onto that. Result? Keating off the hook and a bunch of enthusiastic people running around wanting to become a republic. a bit of déjà vu.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    6:13pm
    Interesting story, especially given that the republic and the flag are unrelated issues,

    I've been wanting a republic since 1955.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    10:40am
    gee mick you and I seem to come from opposite ends of the political philosphies yet we are finding significant agreement on distribution of wealth and I share your skeptism as to why the republic is the topic of the day and not the economy - the politicians don't know what to say or do.
    Barak - elsewhere you tell Mick to grow up and yet it is you who is criticising in strong terms anyone who does not share your view.
    The reason there are still at least 50% of the voting people saying No to a republic is that the ARM have not been able to articulate why we would be any better off
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    10:48am
    I criticise in strong terms posts where people base arguments on ignorance, poor logic or false "facts".

    The reason there are still at least 50% of the voting people saying No to a republic is that they have no idea how things work now, how a republic would work, or are just plain inherently conservative.

    And we really have no idea if your figure of 50% is accurate.
    Hasbeen
    25th Jan 2016
    10:58am
    Would changing to a republic actually feed anyone, other than the lawyers.

    How much do the lawyers academics & the bureaucrats expect to make from their "consultancies" on this.

    How long would it fill the courts with legal challenges to misinterpreted what was written as the law.

    We must be fools to even think about changing what has worked so well.
    MICK
    25th Jan 2016
    11:40am
    And for how long do we continue to be viewed as fools by the rest of the developed world?
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    5:36pm
    Only as long as we are.
    Richard
    25th Jan 2016
    11:01am
    I prefer the concept of appointment by the PM but with strict selection criteria to try to ensure it is not a political appointment especially a pay back for example given to a "failed" or outvoted ex leader, or politician of any sort for that matter.
    A senior and much respected Apolitical Australian drawn from list prepared by both parties from, for example, the Judiciary, Science, Military and Business Professions
    Idontforget
    25th Jan 2016
    11:23am
    A very noble attitude, Richard, but the unbiased selection criteria that you outline just would not happen. The average Australian would have no idea what back room deals go on in the corridors of power. Take Mr. Hockey's appointment as US Ambassador. That was just a reward for going quietly from Parliament. And it was only languidly opposed by the opposition. But the question is, what favours are now owed to the opposition to go quietly on the matter. That we will never know but there is a high likelihood that somewhere down the track and unbeknown to all but the privileged few, that debt will be repaid with a favour.
    Idontforget
    25th Jan 2016
    11:23am
    A very noble attitude, Richard, but the unbiased selection criteria that you outline just would not happen. The average Australian would have no idea what back room deals go on in the corridors of power. Take Mr. Hockey's appointment as US Ambassador. That was just a reward for going quietly from Parliament. And it was only languidly opposed by the opposition. But the question is, what favours are now owed to the opposition to go quietly on the matter. That we will never know but there is a high likelihood that somewhere down the track and unbeknown to all but the privileged few, that debt will be repaid with a favour.
    MICK
    25th Jan 2016
    11:35am
    How do you achieve that Richard. Look at the appointments made by the current government since it took office, including senior public service posts and environment agencies. ALL HAVE BEEN GOVERNMENT CRONIES. At least Rudd shared equally.
    Rod63
    25th Jan 2016
    7:47pm
    The head-of-state (President) could be chosen exactly as the GG is now. There haven't been too many duds there, certainly no cronyism.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    11:06am
    They pull this Stunt every time they want to get our minds off some Filthy Deal they've done !! :-( :-(...Its WORN OUT !!
    sidney70
    25th Jan 2016
    11:25am
    You are very wise particolor. You are able to look outside the square.It is a shame that the majority of people cannot see this.
    MICK
    25th Jan 2016
    11:26am
    You have a point. So is Turnbull's Tax Haven getting too hot?
    Polly Esther
    25th Jan 2016
    11:37am
    Parti, - Yes you're right mate, you can almost smell it can't you?
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    11:38am
    And can some Wise Person tell Me WHY we have to sign deals with the UN for Climate Change RIP OFF ?? Were BIG Children now and can tuck ourselves into bed !! :-( And take a look at that EU Stuff up in Europe ! :-( Want some of that ? :-(
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    12:28pm
    particolor, this is just another hypocritical ass-kissing procedure to show the rest of the world that our government "cares" for the Earth and it's people, only another crock of $hit excuse for raising more money with extra taxes and penalties.
    buby
    25th Jan 2016
    1:16pm
    Yes i think you could be very right Particolor!!!
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    4:24pm
    What's all this BS about anyhow ?? Change the name of the Prime Minister to President and jobs done ! cost about 5 Bucks and leave every thing Else alone ! Except give the People a Voice on Important Matters like it Should Be ! :-) Not go in the Office, lock the door and Sign the Country away !! :-( :-(
    MICK
    25th Jan 2016
    11:19am
    Kings and queens in 2016???? Are we kidding? Is this a discussion worth having or are some of us brain dead?
    Idontforget
    25th Jan 2016
    11:31am
    Don't lead with you chin, Mick.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    11:40am
    The King of Karcarook will have You for that Mick ! :-)
    Polly Esther
    25th Jan 2016
    11:41am
    You could play Prince Charming mick. LOL
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    5:44pm
    Wheres Prince Charming gone ? I think he's given up on us Serfs ?? :-)
    roy
    25th Jan 2016
    10:38pm
    Barak to be our 1st Muslim king or is that queen?
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    5:26am
    mick - please stop behaving so idiotically. If you can't discuss issues more politely than that, you should just go away.
    Rick
    26th Jan 2016
    7:45am
    All the stable democracies are monarchies
    Kactus
    25th Jan 2016
    11:28am
    "..........the Prime Minister selects a Governor-General as head of state, which would then need to be approved by Parliament."

    The Head of State should be as far removed, from the political process, as possible.

    The last thing we need is a Political Party stooge who cannot be objective, unbiased and impartial in the event of a Constitutional crisis.

    I thought there was general consensus that any decisions, about a Republic, would be postponed until after the Queen's reign ends.
    Surely, as matter of common courtesy, this should still be the case.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    4:12pm
    Why does Every State have a Grossly Overpaid Governor ??
    A Pretty little Girl in a Pink dress can cut a Ribbon ! :-) And do it for a Lolly Pop ! Whats more ! :-) :-)
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    4:14pm
    The governors get nice houses, cars and chauffeurs too.
    Kactus
    25th Jan 2016
    6:01pm
    You have inadvertently exposed how complicated & expensive a Head of State change would be.
    Somebody has to fill the State Governors' role or would you prefer that we abandon the Westminister System altogether?
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    6:15pm
    Nah. just give the governors a new title. Maybe State Honchos.
    SRJ
    26th Jan 2016
    10:38am
    @particolor @Barak There really isn't NAY consideration as to what all this would mean for the Governors. Each State would have to agree that the Prez is also the Head od State for each State. That means A LOT of power in one individual. Smells a bit to me.
    particolor
    26th Jan 2016
    11:07am
    It all Stinks and whatever they'd do about it would Still Stink ! :-(
    Mike
    25th Jan 2016
    11:28am
    We already have a Westminster type government which I would have said is the best and safest in the world, until that is we came across people like Bronwyn Bishop and Joe Hockey. However can you imagine Joe or Bronwyn as our next President.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    11:55am
    :-( :-( :-( :-( :-(
    buby
    25th Jan 2016
    1:18pm
    EEEEEEEkkkkkkkkk!!!
    HOLA
    26th Jan 2016
    7:58am
    Worse still Julie Bishop becoming Prime Minister if anything happened to old Malcolm. Yiiikes! head for the Hills.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    9:22am
    An important point there. Obviously we need some sort of deputy to take over if the incumbent can no longer do the job.

    We don't have much say in the present system.
    PlanB
    25th Jan 2016
    11:33am
    It would depend a LOT on who and how the Governor / President, was chosen, I would not want some "CELEB" or "Famous sportsman" or a Military war monger in charge.

    The question can not be black and white like it was b4.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    11:58am
    I think the New Grand Mufti would settle Nicely into the Role !! :-) :-)
    buby
    25th Jan 2016
    1:19pm
    Smacks Particolor.........sheez
    Nascar.
    25th Jan 2016
    11:37am
    Royalists cage rattled today, bring it on.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    12:01pm
    Throw them another Leg of Lamb and shut them up again !
    PlanB
    25th Jan 2016
    11:37am
    I can see it becoming another JOB FOR THE BOYS, maybe another job for useless PMs or treasurers ?

    25th Jan 2016
    11:46am
    What about Bill Shorten for President hell be looking for a job this time next year.
    tj
    25th Jan 2016
    7:46pm
    The way they all look after each other after their gig is up ,that wouldn't surprise me
    Aquarian
    25th Jan 2016
    11:49am
    Australia should become a Republic on the passing of the current Monarch. The model to elect a President should be by a joint sitting of Parliament submitting three names for a Referendum.
    The Ballot paper should have the three names plus a space for a write-in candidate, should any candidate achieve a higher number of write-in votes than the three submitted then they would be elected President of Australia.
    phantom
    25th Jan 2016
    11:50am
    Why have a Prime Minister (President) AND a Head of State. The PM should make all the decisions and be accountable to parliament. We don't need a "Sack Master" or "Party Party Man" to open up every building. We don't need to create another pension for a mate.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    12:37pm
    We already have a Prime Minister and Head of State.

    It's sad that these discussions uncover so much ignorance.
    Ming
    25th Jan 2016
    11:55am
    Why do the blow hards have to raise an issue that divide the community every year when Australia Day comes around? There energy would be better used bringing the people together. I know many of Irish heritage cannot wait for the day when we throw the royal house overboard, just look at the happy little land that Ireland is, the North and South get along so well.
    On another score why do we need to raise an issue about Tony Abbott that has no relationship to Australia Day? Can the lefties never give up?
    Gra
    25th Jan 2016
    12:04pm
    Good comment Ming, someone else who sees this rubbish for what it is.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    12:36pm
    Ming, why do you have to call people names?
    Rick
    26th Jan 2016
    7:44am
    Barack do you consider leftie a term of abuse ...
    Idontforget
    25th Jan 2016
    11:58am
    I don't know if Mr. FitzSimmons has ever slung a rifle over his shoulder for Australia, but in any case, why does his photo appear with a soldier in the background. This is nothing but spin designed to sway opinion. It might resonate with some people but not with me.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    12:14pm
    Well I think that one Party Pays the other Party Big Bickies to make a Big Noise about Nothing, every time they have Signed a SKUNGY DEAL that will cause pandemonium in the Kingdom !!... Pacify the Serfs Payment ! :-)
    Nadine
    25th Jan 2016
    12:07pm
    I have a question.
    Has anyone considered costing this?
    I would have thought this should be included in the 'melting pot'.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    12:23pm
    I think the Melting Pots Melted ?
    WERE BROKE !! :-(
    Except for Perks !! :-)
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    12:35pm
    We're not broke

    Most Australians are comfortably well off or better. The country is broke because Howard stopped taxing people.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    10:51am
    Barak - I've been retired quite a few years now but before that manged budgets for 30 + years and had degrees in finance and commerce - when Howard left we were in surplus and had no debt.
    If we had restrained spending at 2007 levels (+CPI) or gone back to that level after 1st round of GFC extra funding THEN even allowing for dramatic fall in commodity prices we would be close to a balanced budget.
    If anyone says to me we are OK with our federal government spending $100m a day more than they are getting in - they are financially clueless.
    Who says most Aussies are comfortable - pensioners are saying that and Paul Clitheroe is saying that if interest rates go up by just 1% ( and we are 3.5% below long term historical averages) then some 1.2 million are in mortgage stress.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    10:52am
    sorry my comment should read pensioners are not saying this
    SRJ
    26th Jan 2016
    10:59am
    @Barak Oh you are joking. When Howard left, we had a surplus, and funds in reserve. Due to mismanagement since then - on both sides - we have HUGE debt!
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    11:01am
    Your numbers pretty much prove my point. The impact of Howard's tax cuts are now.
    SRJ
    26th Jan 2016
    11:06am
    @Barak - again! Actually, one of the biggest problems has been increased and unfunded SPENDING by both sides of politics. Not reduced taxes!
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    11:09am
    This isn't really the place, but what spending would you cut? Specifics please, not generalities.
    Swinging voter
    25th Jan 2016
    12:11pm
    Why does this divisive issue raise its ugly head every Australia Day which is supposed to be about all of us - not the idea of some pompous non-representative person getting the gig as supreme ruler. The republicans do themselves no good electing that strange big-mouthed old man sporting a childish red bandanna as a promoter of their underwhelming and previously discarded idea. What's the red scarf all about? Attention seeking? Hiding a bald head? His presentation is ridiculous. He seems to think his opinion on everything is more valuable than everyone else's. We just saw the power of the political knife again from politician Turnbull, something the Queen would never contemplate. Keep royalty. It is an institution that has stood the test of time. As for those two young princes - I'd welcome them here in any role. What fine examples of manhood. They put that red bandanna bloke to shame.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    12:34pm
    Huh?

    The Queen did nothing about Turnbull's rise to power, so what use is she to you?
    Swinging voter
    25th Jan 2016
    12:47pm
    Unlike many who advocate for a republic regardless of any proposed model, or guarantees that it would improve the lives of Australians, the Queen has manners - she is always a lady. The Queen has never put a foot wrong. Wouldn't it be nice if her courteous example were emulated by some people who post on blogs. That's "what use she is" to me.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    1:08pm
    I thought you set the tome with your comments on FitzSimons. Just following your lead.
    Swinging voter
    25th Jan 2016
    3:45pm
    Barak there's a vast difference in the style and manner of the Queen and one of the biggest mouths in Australia, bedecked in a red handkerchief for what purpose apart from making a man of his age look like a total juvenile fool. When debating here, it is a rare moment that I feel like directing a smart comment to a fellow blogger who is only wanting to express a heartfelt opinion. I try to stick to the subject matter and the characters around it. However, in your case Barak, it's within the bounds of reason that your continual sniping at those who make comments not supporting your one-sided views is sadly going to result in personal rebuke.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    4:02pm
    Perhaps my comments could be seen as sniping, but only at the ignorant.
    Rod63
    25th Jan 2016
    7:54pm
    "not the idea of some pompous non-representative person getting the gig as supreme ruler."

    That's not what has happened so far so why would it change? And remember it's basically just token.

    25th Jan 2016
    12:12pm
    I didn't immediately recognise Fitzsimons without his red head doily.
    Not a Bludger
    25th Jan 2016
    12:12pm
    I agree with Margie and am always suspicious as to what the pollies are trying to divert attention from by again raising this matter - which does not have popular support.

    Further, what cred can be given to a twerp who insists on wearing a red hankie on his head - if he wants to live in a republic then nick off back to Ireland.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    12:32pm
    It's a wonderfully mature position to take to tell anyone with whom you disagree to just go away.
    Swinging voter
    25th Jan 2016
    12:48pm
    You should know about immaturity Barak - its something you habitually don't display here.
    Sundays
    25th Jan 2016
    12:13pm
    I favour an American style system where money buys you the best candidates, freedoms which include no compulsory voting, a legal system where deals can be made, and of course the right to bear arms! There are more important things to consider first
    gossbaby
    25th Jan 2016
    12:14pm
    Fitzsimmons needs to be wary of what he is proposing there has been many a good man come unstuck over this same stupidity. I say in my old age leave well enough alone and besides who or whom gave elected Premiers the right to speak for us I as sure as hell wont freeze over didn't so get on with doing something useful and leave playing politics that is not we are paying you for. God forbid we are AMERICANISED enough so no President for me thank you.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    12:18pm
    :-) :-)
    Polly Esther
    25th Jan 2016
    12:41pm
    Yes, no septic tanks please.

    25th Jan 2016
    12:31pm
    There's an awful lot of simplistic, unsubstantiated posts here or posts based on falsehoods, so I'll make one too.

    It's time we became a republic. There is no longer any significant practical connection between Australia and the monarchy. It doesn't have cost much.

    Bring on the future.
    Idontforget
    25th Jan 2016
    12:48pm
    And this is your seventh simplistic, unsubstantiated post based on falsehoods.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    1:05pm
    What falsehoods?
    Idontforget
    25th Jan 2016
    3:24pm
    Barak, you have asked, "what falsehoods". So try this for size.

    You have asserted in your earlier post........ "The country is broke because Howard stopped taxing people".

    Without any further ado, I throw down the challenge to you to substantiate this assertion, without any spin or weasel words.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    3:50pm
    Alright, it was an exaggeration. But Howard did give people massive tax cuts, primarily as bribes to get them to vote for him and his party.
    Dallanhk
    25th Jan 2016
    12:33pm
    ......... Imagine - a pokitical party wins an overall majority in both houses. The PM 'selects' a supporter to become President ........ then you have total political control. ..... next step change the constitution so that the incumbent party has enduring power - no elections, no need! Fantasy?? Germany post 1st WW, same process led to Hitler.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    12:58pm
    Dallanhk - there is nothing right now to prevent what you describe happening. Just replace the word "President" with "Governor General".

    Why is ignorance such a big player in these discussions?
    Batara
    25th Jan 2016
    1:05pm
    Give you top prize mate. Least intelligent post of the day.

    Why do the monarchists trot out all the emotive nonsense arguments to maintain Australia's position of shame as a lackey to the British royal family? I wonder how many monarchists are also climate change deniers. Tactics are quite similar.
    Chiz
    25th Jan 2016
    12:43pm
    Anyone watching the circus going on between now and when the next president of the USA is elected must be crazy to want to emulate that! Is there any Republic with a system preferable to what we have here? Not for me!! Sheila
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    1:04pm
    There are many better republic examples than the USA. In fact, most are.
    Chiz
    25th Jan 2016
    4:24pm
    Such as...................???
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    4:47pm
    Ireland
    Rod63
    25th Jan 2016
    7:58pm
    Chiz - we would have a completely different system. The president would just replace the Governor General and should be chosen teh same way.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    8:10pm
    I certainly have watched the American Circus !! Non Millionaires May not Apply !! :-) And the Biggest BSA Wins !! :-) :-)
    Rod has the best plan for Australia and the least Expensive by FAR !! :-)
    The only thing I agree with in American Politics is the President must born in America !!
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    8:18pm
    That's one of the silliest laws the Americans have.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    9:04pm
    It is now ! They are still arguing about where Obama was born ??
    And all his History papers are under Lock and Key ?? That's what stinks about the American Whatever !
    JoMojo
    25th Jan 2016
    12:45pm
    There will always be too many snouts in the trough.

    Time Australia stood up and became a Republic on the world stage. Too many overseas think we are Austria or something.

    Advance Australia Fair = Republic. The Queen lovely lady but for England not Australia. Our own flag perhaps Gold with green or a white kangaroo and Indigenous colours as a border. Too many now confuse Australias flag with NZ (who are advancing too). Time to cut mummie apron strings and be a proud strong republic in our own right!
    KSS
    25th Jan 2016
    12:51pm
    "Time Australia stood up and became a Republic on the world stage. Too many overseas think we are Austria or something."

    Seriously JoMojo!?! That's why we should become a republic? To differentiate ourselves from Austria?
    JoMojo
    25th Jan 2016
    12:54pm
    KSS you might be happy to be seen as part of England, Austria...or not existing at all......not me.
    Crimmo
    25th Jan 2016
    12:46pm
    White Australia started as a convict colony and we are still a convict colony. Only now we are run by them. This country is run by corruption and incompetence, and has a love affair with our criminals. Australia doesn't deserve to be a republic. Trouble is that as this county develops, so too does our corruption develop. Australia is still the best country in the world to live, only because we are a young country and still learning from the well developed corruption and incompetence overseas.I was suitably amused when, a few years ago, some of the clowns running our prisons ran back to the mother country for advice on how to do their job.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    4:28pm
    Well Said ! :-)
    KSS
    25th Jan 2016
    12:48pm
    have a number of concerns with this so called declaration from just seven people. Whilst I have no issue with people holding opinions on both sides of the argument expressing them as individuals, I absolutely have an issue with these officials using their assumed power to make such statements in the name of the office to which they were elected. Mr Baird did not win the last State election on his promise to take Australia forward to a Republic (in fact it was not even mentioned) but rather on selling off electricity. What then gives him the right to speak on this issue as MY Premiere? It is note worthy that the WA Premiere - a known Republican - was the only premiere NOT to sign the declaration. I wonder why?

    Today from some 22+ million we see 4007 want the republic. Until such times as ALL Australians vote for the change these 7 so called leaders should keep their public declarations to themselves.

    Until Australians stop making comments like Mike's "And for how long do we continue to be viewed as fools by the rest of the developed world?", (who cares what the neighbours think? Its an internal matter that's if the rest of the world thinks about Australia at all which I doubt) and stops the ridiculous calls for [insert name of recently retired cricket captain, footy player, gold medal winner, B grade celebrity etc for President], Australia is not mature enough to even consider the possibility of becoming a Republic.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    1:03pm
    KSS - Your "just seven people" comment is idiotic.

    We all, even including you, know that a lot more people than that want Australia to be a republic.

    Why waste electrons writing such garbage?
    KSS
    25th Jan 2016
    1:24pm
    Barak, please read what I actually wrote not what you think I wrote! The change.org petition has 4000 signatures at the time of reporting that and the 7 Premiers makes 4007 as reported.

    Some civility in your posts would be nice.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    1:42pm
    Some reality in your posts would be a bonus.

    We all, even including you, know that a lot more people than 4007 want Australia to be a republic.
    KSS
    25th Jan 2016
    3:47pm
    And a lot more don't Barak.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    4:03pm
    Pointless comment.
    KSS
    25th Jan 2016
    5:13pm
    Ditto!
    Rod63
    25th Jan 2016
    8:02pm
    KSS I believe it is more than 50% who want a republic and around 25% who don't. The others don't care.
    The Bronze Anzac
    25th Jan 2016
    12:50pm
    My bet is that New Zealand will beat Australia to the punch AGAIN, in becoming a Republic before us. Look at their move towards it, with a new flag about to be approved. We have changed our National Anthem from "God Save the Queen". WE don't need to wait for the Queen to end her reign. We need now to take the Queen from our $5 bank note & coins, take the Union Jack from our flag, & have flag colours & design that distinctly reflects our unique position in a modern world. We love sport. Always have. Yet ALL Australian sports teams play under green & gold, not red, white & blue with the Union Jack in the corner. I always thought that a Republic was a form of Government in which the people possess the power, & which the country has a President as head of state. When it comes to a referendum or plebiscite, I will be voting for it. I hope I'm still alive when this happens.
    KSS
    25th Jan 2016
    12:55pm
    Umm can't agree The Bronze Anzac. The sports supporters may wave the green and gold punching Kangaroo flag but the players play under the Australian flag - yes the red white and blue with the Union Jack in the corner - is one that gets hoisted up the flagpole, not the boxing kangaroo.
    JoMojo
    25th Jan 2016
    12:57pm
    Well said bravo TBA.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    1:01pm
    FACT: The flag and the Republic are separate issues. Changing one does not rquire changing the other.
    The Bronze Anzac
    25th Jan 2016
    1:03pm
    I never mentioned anything about a "punching kangaroo". Whilst the current Australian flag is our official flag, of course it's the ONLY one that is hoisted on the flagpoles. Not even the racist Aboriginal flag is allowed.
    The Bronze Anzac
    25th Jan 2016
    1:07pm
    Barak. Do you think that when (not if) Australia becomes a Republic, that the flag would not be changed at the same time ?
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    1:14pm
    No, I don't think it would, even though it's what I'd like to see.

    They really are, legally and practically, separate issues.
    The Bronze Anzac
    25th Jan 2016
    2:09pm
    Barak. Then let's start with the flag. Get that issue over with. The Queen might fall off her perch by then, & the Republican issue would be odds on to get through.
    Mygasheater
    25th Jan 2016
    12:52pm
    Nitpicking Alert.

    I watched another fellow from ARM being interviewed on the ABC News and he stated "every" state and territory signed the declaration, WA hasn't and he then said that it was appropriate to release the declaration on Australia Day, today isn't Australia Day.

    How's about getting your facts right folks. Minor details I know but if you can't get the boring, little, details right, getting the big things right might be a problem.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    12:59pm
    I agree. Facts are critical in this discussion.

    Please nitpick ALL the posts above for ignorance.
    Pamiea
    25th Jan 2016
    1:01pm
    So does this mean we would have another fat cat commanding a large wage?
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    1:11pm
    No.

    Replace Governor General with President.
    Reggie
    25th Jan 2016
    1:02pm
    It appears that the media is at it again with it's spin, Do not get sucked in by these pro Republicans. WE do not want the Republican style election here. We do not want the chances of Armed Forces takeovers of elected government figures as is the case in many smaller republics. We have already vote against a republic in a referendum, which costs more for the taxpayers. Monarchists unite and put down this media promoted garbage.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    1:12pm
    Please clarify "WE".

    And Armed Forces takeovers have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
    geomac
    25th Jan 2016
    1:08pm
    Peter Fitzsimons is not on the public teat but an author and journalist. Why open with such a blatant falsehood ? How much money do we presently fork out for a GG ? Not much thought margie has gone into your post.
    Constitution
    26th Jan 2016
    10:38am
    Dear Friends All
    I am in sympathy with most of the comments above. HOWEVER, it seems to me we are tackling this problem from the wrong start point.
    Firstly, our system of government IS BROKEN so we should be discussing how to fix it. If the solution to that problem includes becoming a republic, then so be it!
    So, what is wrong with our system of government?
    Firstly, the two major political parties have stolen our democracy - the PEOPLE are powerless. The only power the PEOPLE have is to throw out one mob and put the other mob in power every three years or so. The political parties select most of the candidates. The PEOPLE have to choose to vote for one of the two major parties or "waste" their vote voting for someone who will never be in government.
    Furthermore, the two major political parties have organised things so that the tax-payers fund their election campaigns to the tune of millions of dollars by virtue of the $2.65 per vote rebate. The political parties also decide the policies that will be pursued (and those that will never get on the agenda). But an even bigger problem is that elected candidates are accountable - not to their constituents as it should be - but to their political party.
    All this means that our democracy has been destroyed.
    One way we could restore our democracy would be to create tiny electorates of, say 5,000 voters. That would mean you would be voting for one of your neighbours, someone you know or could get to know very easily, someone who could speak with you so he knows what his PEOPLE want. And if those electorates had the power to recall a representative who was not performing satisfactorily and hold a fresh election - THAT would restore accountability to the PEOPLE and so restore our democracy.
    BUT (I can hear you saying), electorates of 5,000 voters would mean 2400 representatives (12,000,000 voters divided by 5,000 =2400). And yes, a 2400 member parliament is not what we want.
    However, if we did away with State Parliaments (and Local Councils) and grouped these 5,000 strong electorates into about 100 regions instead, we would have Regional Assemblies of about 50 Members.
    Each of these Assemblies could elect one of their Members to a National Parliament. Those Members would be accountable to their Regional Assembly (also with the power to recall) - further restoring accountability.
    And if Bills before the National Parliament were to be debated in each Regional Assembly, Regional Representatives would know how to vote and we would not need a Senate (the Regional Assemblies would provide the review function).
    Another principle of democracy is what is called "the Separation of Powers". That is, the Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary operate independent of each other so all the power is not in one institution.
    This principle is broken in our current system because the Executive (the Ministers) are also in the Parliament.
    We could fix this problem simply by making each Department Head responsible for the activities of the Department over which he already has control. The Departments would be responsible for implementing the policies decided by the Parliament and they would do this under the control of the PRESIDENT.
    WHAT DO YOU THINK?
    Charles
    SRJ
    26th Jan 2016
    10:43am
    @Constitution I agree that the current system of Government is broken - at a FEDERAL level. Let's get rid of the Lower House in the Federal Government. Keep the Senate and remove political affiliation. That would be a move in the right directions. If we then go down the path of becoming a Republic, each State would select their choice, the Senate would ratify and then the President would reside over the Senate, and take "National" duties as required. The States have given far too much of their power over the decades to the Federal Government, and it should be reclaimed!
    Teddyboy.
    25th Jan 2016
    1:25pm
    Politicians should be banned from even applying. What would be wrong with most of the Governors General we have had in the past. Such people should be nominated and the people should elect the final choice.
    Rod63
    25th Jan 2016
    8:06pm
    No-one will apply! The president can be chosen exactly as the GGs have been.
    Batara
    25th Jan 2016
    1:27pm
    See where the monarchists draw susentance. Today's Murdoch propaganda sheet for Brisbane (formerly respected Courier Mail) on page 4 reports that a poll conducted for the "think tank" Institute of Public Affairs shows Australians do not want change. IPA is a think tank? ROFLMHO. Shows what sort of moron supports bowing down to poms.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    1:44pm
    Murdoch / IPA / Think.

    Which is he odd one out?
    fedup
    25th Jan 2016
    1:30pm
    Settle it with another referendum once & for all and lets see how many Australians want to change our system. pollies are having themselves on.
    BnT
    25th Jan 2016
    8:30pm
    The last referendum was supposed to settle it once and for all and didn't. Referendums cost a lot of money and right now we have better things to spend that money on as some of you have mentioned. Leave things as they are and don't waste what we don't have on things we don't need.
    And the last thing we need right now is someone like Donald Trump at the helm....
    I'm all for staying as we are with our current flag. When we have adequate funds to pay for all the things we should be doing, then we can spend a bit of refurbishment and take a vote on if/how we refurbish.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    8:39pm
    The last referendum was not supposed to settle it once and for all. Only a Yes result can do that.

    The flag is irrelevant, as is Donald Trump.
    fedup
    25th Jan 2016
    1:32pm
    Who is this person Mr FitzSimons ? what credentials does he have to speak for the average Australian? what's his agenda?
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    1:38pm
    He is head of the Australian Republican Movement, an open organisation anyone can join. He is speaking in that capacity.

    I'll take a wild guess that you're not a member. So he is not speaking on your behalf.

    Is there a problem?
    tj
    25th Jan 2016
    8:02pm
    The colour of his head gear should tell you his agenda
    Rod63
    25th Jan 2016
    8:09pm
    His agenda is to head the ARM to see Australia become a republic. tj, his head gear has nothing to do with it. This is not a party political issue.
    justme
    25th Jan 2016
    1:37pm
    My 2 cents worth.
    Yes the system has worked - OK - but times have changed.
    My preference is just to change the references to GG in the Constitution to President and leave the rest mostly as is.
    Least cost, least and smoothest change, and should achieve result.
    Obviously several legal and procedural steps, but that applies to all options.
    Rod63
    25th Jan 2016
    8:10pm
    Agree - it's very simple.
    meg
    25th Jan 2016
    1:41pm
    there was a referendem
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    1:46pm
    ...magnificently manipulated by a very clever and very nasty PM to get the result he wanted.

    The difference now is a PM with the opposite point of view.

    Isn't that good?
    PlanB
    25th Jan 2016
    1:50pm
    Yes the referendum was very sneaky like the PM that put it forward
    tj
    25th Jan 2016
    8:05pm
    Fair dinkum ,be real how on earth can anyone manipulate a referendum
    Rod63
    25th Jan 2016
    8:11pm
    In the yes statement, he put in a way to get the president which many pro-republicans disagreed with.
    ex PS
    26th Jan 2016
    11:30am
    tj, nearly every survey printed is couched in terms that are guaranteed to support a certain result. Questions can always be slanted to ellicit a certain response.
    This is exactly what happened in the republic Referendum. Even people who wanted a Republic said no because of the way the President was to be selected.
    particolor
    26th Jan 2016
    11:52am
    Its not a Matter of Prime Minister or President its a matter of TOO MANY Teat Suckers ! Present and Retired in Comfort, and still wont Shut Up ! :-( Solve that problem FIRST ! The Ship is SINKING !!:-( :-(
    Young
    25th Jan 2016
    2:05pm
    I was brought up to believe that state premiers were elctd to represent the people,not to put forward their own views.Let the people speak please.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    2:10pm
    Yes. Such elected people should never express their own opinions. John Howard, of course, made no comment at all on the republic issue around the time of the last referendum. LOL

    Young, do you realise how silly and biased your post sounds? You would obviously have not made your comment if they had expressed views similar to your own.
    Young
    25th Jan 2016
    2:09pm
    The same should apply to all groups,clubs,etc.The president is there to represent the views of all.Many presidents think they are n total control and their opinion is all that counts.Please let your club members or party members or whatever express their views and then represent the majority.
    Young
    25th Jan 2016
    2:23pm
    Barak,John Howard was entitled to give his view like anybody but then it has to be put to the people.We have the media now saying that because all the premiers bar one have stated that they support a republic,then so be it.We are not n a dictatorship.The people always must hav their say.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    2:35pm
    Young, your position is illogical.

    First you said "state premiers were elctd to represent the people,not to put forward their own views".

    Then you said "John Howard was entitled to give his view".
    Hawkeye
    25th Jan 2016
    2:28pm
    I honestly don't know anyone who cares a rats a@#$ about it.

    But, if it happens it will cost us squillions to make the chosen one very rich for doing absolutely nothing.

    After all, how much time does the queen devote to head of stating Australia? Maybe an hour or two per year? Why do we even need anyone to replace her? And if we do feel the need to replace her, I volunteer to do it for free in my spare time.

    I reckon we should just stay as we are, but stop paying the queen.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    2:36pm
    Hawkeye, have you noticed the Governor General?
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    2:39pm
    Yeah !!:-( What's that about ?? Whitlam's gone now ! So get rid of the GG too ! :-) :-)
    Cat
    25th Jan 2016
    3:37pm
    Yes Barak, I have noticed every Governor General posing alongside various people in various photo ops, and I have also noticed that is the only thing that the Governor General ever does aside from holding expensive dinner parties at Government House.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    5:34pm
    Jeeves ! Fetch a bottle of Sauvignon Château la Monaco like a Good Chap will you ?? :-) :-)
    jeffr
    25th Jan 2016
    2:36pm
    I like the saying "First It Works, Then It"s Clean and Last Of all You Paint It" The Westminster System works.Quite a few of our Politicians of all political parties appear to be greedy and only in the job for themselves Some appear to be corrupt and some have been found guilty...When and only when, we have ALL Politicians working TOGETHER for the Australian people should we think about the Paint Job.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    2:39pm
    jeffr - the minimalist republic model described in the article would require virtually no change to the Westminster System.

    So no paint job needed.
    Young
    25th Jan 2016
    2:43pm
    Batak,you do not understand.All people are entitled to their views.If that person is a leader then he is entitled to his view.However,after expressing his view he must then put it to those beneath him to express theirs.If their view is different he must still vote in favour of it as he is only there because of the people who put him there.In other words he must represent his people.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    2:48pm
    So, did you make a mistake when you said "that state premiers were elctd to represent the people,not to put forward their own views."?
    Alexia_x
    25th Jan 2016
    2:43pm
    I support Australia becoming a republic, independent of any other country in total.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    2:48pm
    And that includes the Defunct UN and other Blood Sucking Leaches ! :-)
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    3:29pm
    Too much EXPENSIVE Duplication in this Small Population Country !!
    All we need is an El Presidento, A Treaurer A few Boy Scouts . Army, Navy and Air Force, Local Councils deal with anything Else ! :-) Get rid of the rest and We will save BILLIONS Upon BILLIONS ! And NO Fancy deals with foreign Country's ! :-( Do our own Mining, If You want it You Buy it and PAY YOUR TAX HERE, not in Dublin !! :-)
    I feel Better Now !! :-) :-)
    jeff
    25th Jan 2016
    2:53pm
    The last think we need is a republic. If we go republic we will need a new constitution. You really think we can trust our government to rewrite it to represent the Australian People. Of course they wont. It will be to benefit them self's and big businesses. Our government has already broken the law and ignored the constitution. The Australian Constitution gives us the people a lot of protection. Do you really want to lose that protection.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    2:54pm
    I want it updated.

    Any change to the constitution gets voted on by the public. The politicians don't decide.
    jeffr
    25th Jan 2016
    3:00pm
    Barak.....tell that to any politician and they would LAUGH behind your barak and do what ever they wanted anyway.....and that applies to all parties.
    jeff
    25th Jan 2016
    3:02pm
    just like the 1988 Referendum denied an attempt to legalese local governments. and now they call themselves local government and threaten us if we don't comply.
    Cat
    25th Jan 2016
    3:27pm
    After reading the constitution, and considering the set of laws that impose restrictions on what we are allowed to think and say, it is evident that we Australians are a country of severely subjugated people, who, under the constitution and laws of Australia do not even have the minor privilege of being accorded the status of human being. The only 'rights' that we officially have are some limited rights to property ownership that can be messed with at any time because we have no protection from that. As we have seen with the extreme anti free speech laws, we are like inanimate puppets in a puppet show that are strung up with our every spoken word and deed directed by despotic bureaucrats at their will. We have no protection against that. That is total subjugation, and I think that many people are blind to it because either they came from a similar situation, or live all of their lives here. However I have come to the conclusion that under the current scheme of things it is probably not even necessary to 'become a republic' in order to for us to be accorded the rights that reflect a new status as human beings. As has been mentioned the cost of relieving ourselves of the monarchy would be potentially crippling and it wouldn't necessarily change anything if we only continue to be treated like inanimate puppets by what ever whim of whatever despotic misguided uneducated bureaucrats and someone posing as a 'president'.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    3:36pm
    Yes Your Right ! :-) It reads a bit like the Koran !! :-(
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    3:38pm
    PS.. Without the Prayer Mat ! :-)
    True Blue
    25th Jan 2016
    4:57pm
    particolor ..Which Constitution was you reading there is the true Constitution of 1900-1901 over twelve hundred pages or was it the 7 others formed by governments.
    Young
    25th Jan 2016
    3:35pm
    Australia Day tomorrow.Looking forward to it.Love our flag and our way of life.To all of those who don't like us and are not prepared to have a go.Leave.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    3:52pm
    Who is "us"?

    I'm not too sure I want obviously biased, illogical posters here. Will you leave please?
    geomac
    25th Jan 2016
    4:16pm
    So you would be happy with people like me who love Australia but think the flag is spoiled by a foreign flag in the left corner ? People like me who see no valid reason to have a foreign person on the other side of the world being our head of state. That same person and her family promote the foreign country in trade and sport instead of Australia. People like me who have their democratic opinions and views and live in the modern world not the 18th century.
    Cat
    25th Jan 2016
    11:22pm
    In reply to geomac: One problem that I do see with the current flag is that it does not represent and acknowledge all of Australia's states and territories. The Australian Antarctic Territory is not symbolised anywhere on it and it should be, and along with that the sovereignty of that territory should be enforced, which a string of elected governments have disgracefully failed to do. I believe that this shows a lack of respect for this country that the Federal Govt allows anyone to invade this territory and do whatever they want there. Also, in regards to your dislike of the union jack, a fitting replacement for that could be some version of the rising sun insignia, which has been a symbol that has represented Australia from the outset as well as being incorporated as part of the Australian Army insignia.
    Reggie
    25th Jan 2016
    3:40pm
    TBA stated- "Not even the racist Aboriginal flag is allowed." We are attempting to assimilate with our indigenous people and here you are bringing racism into the equation This is not about racism it about peoples thoughts on whether a Commonwealth Nation becomes a Republic. The constitution specifically states "The Crown and Responsible Government As well as being a federation, Australia is a constitutional monarchy. Under this system of government, as the term suggests, the head of State of a country is a monarch whose functions are regulated by a constitution. The concept of ‘the Crown’ pervades the Constitution. For example, the Queen is part of the Parliament (section 1), and is empowered to appoint the Governor-General as her representative (section 2). The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as her representative (section 61). Despite the terms of the Constitution, the Queen does not play a day-to-day role in the Commonwealth Government. Those few functions which the Queen does perform (for example, appointing the Governor-General) are done in accordance with advice from the Prime Minister. and
    Representative Government Another fundamental principle which underlies the Constitution is that of ‘representative government’ – that is, government by representatives of the people who are chosen by the people. Consistently with this principle, sections 7
    and 28 of the Constitution require regular elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate, and sections 7 and 24 require members of the Commonwealth Parliament to be directly chosen by the people. It is irrelevant that the Monarch is male or female. We have to remember that our soldiers, sailors and airmen have fought under two Monarchs a King and a Queen. we all solemnly remember them many times a year. The members of all RSL's and Service Clubs throughout Australia would have to also make costly changes to their relevant constitutions. Changing to a Republic would mean changes to all the legislation in Australia, would cost the tax payer Millions of Dollars money we tax payers should not have to pay. All the red rag tossers are manipulating the press to have them support their brainless ideologies. The government of Australia is elected by the people for the people. SAY NO TO A REPUBLIC.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    3:56pm
    Reggie - you seem to be saying "It will be hard to do, so we shouldn't do it."

    Was that the attitude of those soldiers, sailors and airmen you mentioned?
    Tombo
    25th Jan 2016
    4:02pm
    The other irritating thing about the republican argument is that it somehow presumes that Australia will only become "independent" when the country becomes a republic. In fact Australia is a completely independent nation already. It is a full member of the UN and recently had a seat on the Security Council. Australia forms her own alliances and trade agreements without going cap in hand to Britain for permission. Her current military commitment in Iraq even exceed that of Britain. If China, or any other nation has a problem with Australia they do not summon the British Ambassador to haul his 'colony' into line. We are completely independent from Britain.

    Thus there may be arguments for a republic but the 'independence' one is utterly unsustainable
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    4:08pm
    Then we should make it formal in our constitution that we are independent.
    Tombo
    25th Jan 2016
    4:15pm
    A constitutional amendment asserting that a nation is independent. It's hard to imagine anything more farcical.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    4:19pm
    No more farcical than the present situation that says the monarch has all these powers that are never exercised. And don't wan them to be.
    Tombo
    25th Jan 2016
    4:33pm
    The Monarch has no more 'powers' than those permitted her by the Australian PM on whose advice she has to act. So that's not an argument either.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    4:50pm
    Tombo - you seem to be arguing that the monarch is irrelevant So let's make it official.
    Tombo
    25th Jan 2016
    5:56pm
    Of course she's irrelevant, which is exactly what we need. Or would you prefer a 'relevant' Head of State? If so how would you define 'relevant'?
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    6:00pm
    An Australian would be a start..
    Tombo
    25th Jan 2016
    6:35pm
    So that, in the end is what it boils down to, is it? No constitutional, legal, diplomatic or political reasons or any obvious public benefit. We need and Australian Head of State because...er...we need an Australian Head of State. Good luck with that.
    Mags
    25th Jan 2016
    3:52pm
    I don't want a republic because having the monarch is a safety valve and I would hate to end up with a three ring circus like America ....have a look at the pollies we have now...who in the name of any God would you want heading the country with no restraints...leave it alone alls good
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    4:05pm
    A safety valve for what? Hot air?

    The system need be no different from what we have now in practice, apart from renaming the GG the President. No change at all in the power structure.
    Mags
    25th Jan 2016
    3:54pm
    Leave it all alone ...it ain't broke so doesn't need fixing
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    4:09pm
    Having a foreigner as our head of state looks broken to me.
    HarrysOpinion
    25th Jan 2016
    4:23pm
    1) A minimalist republic model, as backed by Mr FitzSimons, would be where the Prime Minister selects a Governor-General as head of state, which would then need to be approved by Parliament.
    2) The other model would involve all Australians going to the polls to elect a president of the new Australian republic.

    Before Australia decides to become a Republic it needs to amend its Constitution so that it can legally become a Republic. The amendments must be put to the people for their approval through a Referendum or through Delegates elected by the people for the people (similar to the USA system). If this has not been modeled yet then we are ‘nowhere’.
    I do not agree with the Governor General as head of state to be elected by the parliament as the president. This idea ‘stinks’ of cronyism. The President must be elected by the people for the people.
    True Blue
    25th Jan 2016
    4:47pm
    We the people have a Constitution 1900-1901 it has been hidden from Australians since 1953 Governments will do everything in their power to brainwash and keep us ignorant. Because people are waking up to their corporate ways now push for a Republic. How convenient. Referendum so the people decide and just hope and pray their are enough of those who really knows the ramifications of a Republic. God forbid if this comes off we will all be doomed.
    Batara
    25th Jan 2016
    4:50pm
    HS, why would we want to elect a figurehead who has no actual political power? Sounds to me like a gross waste of our money. Or are you proposing that we change our constitution so that the head of state would be the executive and the parliament become the legislature like in the American system?

    I would like us to ditch the Pommy royals, but otherwise leave the system of government much the same as it is now. For that matter why call it a republic? When they got rid of the royals in Britain they formed a Commonwealth. Pity the buggers came back. The idea that someone is born to be king or queen makes no sense to me.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    4:57pm
    True Blue - the constitution is available to all right here:

    https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwip5drAo8TKAhWhdKYKHZhOAiMQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2F~%2Fmedia%2F05%2520About%2520Parliament%2F52%2520Sen%2F523%2520PPP%2F2012_Australian_Constitution.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH5K_7EnsIGTh78TyGCp8s2qPR2Yw&sig2=CfGMYlPgguJ1GUvEVV3s7A

    That's a government link. Where did you get the idea it was hidden?
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    5:04pm
    Yeah You should have to cut the Head off a Pesky Fire Breathing Dragon to be King !! :-)
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    5:06pm
    Or pull a sword out of a lump of rock.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    5:11pm
    Or Smote an Ogre that's Menacing your People !
    True Blue
    25th Jan 2016
    4:32pm
    If Australians believe we should become a REPUBLIC and lose what little freedom and rights we have left then in all fairness a REFERENDUM should be held. No government has the right to ignore the people of this country.It is only government and the wealthy elite that will benefit us becoming a Republic. If you think it has been hard to make ends meet now, you have seen nothing yet. "NO" TO A REPUBLIC
    Batara
    25th Jan 2016
    4:41pm
    Hey True Blue, could you please explain to me why ditching the British royal family would make any contribution to losing any freedom and rights that we might have? I honestly do not follow your meaning.

    For that matter how is it that declaring our freedom from British royalty is going to make it more difficult to make ends meet?
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    4:45pm
    Yes True Blue. I'm with Batara.

    The connections you make make no sense at all
    True Blue
    25th Jan 2016
    4:53pm
    We have always been free.. it has nothing to do with the Royals. It is about losing our Constitution 1900-1901. You probably know nothing about it. Suggest you look up on face book Constitution for Dummies. No pun intended as that is what it is called. Then come to me and ask questions. Enlighten yourselves and wake up to some facts.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    5:08pm
    True Blue - what is the constitution I find when I do a Google search?

    Not the real one?
    Illuminati
    25th Jan 2016
    4:34pm
    The idea that someone is a head of state by birthright, that they have to do nothing but grow up to be the king and one day their offspring will do the same is ridiculous and straight out of the middle ages. Think about it. It may be ceremonial but it's still ridiculous.
    Swinging voter
    25th Jan 2016
    4:54pm
    Do nothing? Each year, the 89 yr old Queen's patronage and direct involvement (at her mature age still arriving at several weekly functions and working tirelessly on behalf of her charities) is directly responsible for the raising of 1.5 billion UK pounds. Her offspring are heading in the same direction. I'd like some guarantee an Australian president would be willing to do the same. The only thing current republican presidents do is take money from those silly enough to give it to them for their own election campaigns.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    5:00pm
    Prove that one please.
    Illuminati
    25th Jan 2016
    5:40pm
    I meant do nothing to earn the right to be head of state, not that they do nothing as the head of state, but I think you know what I meant.
    PIXAPD
    25th Jan 2016
    4:38pm
    The traitors want a Republic... Turncoat Turnbull and all the other apostates
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    4:46pm
    Traitors?

    No, you're talking about the people who want to be loyal to Australia, rather than a foreigner.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    4:46pm
    Only problem is in that Hole in the wall is They all want to be El Presidento !! :-) :-)
    PIXAPD
    25th Jan 2016
    7:09pm
    Australia Day to me is echoed in this...Thus did a former prime Minister declare regarding the White Australia policy>>>>>'During the Second World War, Prime Minister John Curtin reinforced the policy, saying "This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race."

    Multiculturalism sure wrecked that up.

    Those who betrayed Australia with multiculturalism are traitors and remain so as far as I am concerned, their heritage to this nation is now become problems on so many levels, and division among people, and I do not care who does not like me for saying this, for I am not here to win any popularity contest, it is however the truth.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    7:11pm
    No it's not. And it's completely off topic as well.
    Cat
    25th Jan 2016
    10:58pm
    The term 'traitor' means a person who colludes with enemy forces during official conflict. Those who endorse and facilitate multiculturalism are not doing that, so what you are saying can not be right. I don't dislike you or anyone for saying what you say because I think it is worth clarifying.
    Vee
    25th Jan 2016
    4:50pm
    Personally I would prefer, at face value at the moment, that nominations be presented to and elected by both houses. There may be a bit of a mix of people put up by the parties
    but at least it couldn't be said there was a preference. Unless we the people are silly enough to vote a majority of one party
    over the other in both houses then we get the leader we deserve !
    Flipsout
    25th Jan 2016
    4:54pm
    Are there not much more important issues facing Australia than this?
    In my opinion it is a non issue. Last poll I saw today 57% wanted the status quo.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    4:59pm
    The only people who ever argue that things are unimportant are those who actually don't want them to happen.

    The percentage response to any poll in this area will depend hugely on what questions you ask. John Howard knew and used this very well to get exactly what he wanted.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    5:01pm
    Good Choice ! :-) Status Quo...Down Down Deeper and Down ! :-)
    margw5
    25th Jan 2016
    5:01pm
    Ugh..Peter FitzSimons looks even worse without his red bandana! Judging by the fierce opinions of everyone commenting on the Republic or not issue, I think it's still not going to be settled 4 years from now, and it's going going to be a huge waste of money - again.
    The pro republicans are the first ones who want to line up and meet the Royals when they are out here. Look at Malcolm Turnbull, brown nosing!
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    5:03pm
    I'm a pro-republican I have no interest in meeting the royals.

    Next?
    Rod63
    25th Jan 2016
    8:23pm
    You can be pro-republican and still be polite to people.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    8:26pm
    I am always polite to people who stick to the topic, and know what they're talking about.

    Unfortunately, there's'an awful lot of arrogant ignorance and absolute illogical crap on display here.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    8:31pm
    Careful margw5, the bandana is a necessary medical item, it covers a circumcision scar.
    niemakawa
    25th Jan 2016
    9:13pm
    Barak, it is very unlikely you will get an invitation to a Royal Tea Party. Have you checked your mail lately there is a big party this year to celebrate HM's 90th Birthday, maybe you are on her wish list. Other than that the closest you will get is a card on your 100th, if you last that long. Chin up old fellow.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    9:24pm
    Yeah. I'll make a booking with my therapist just in case of depression.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    9:32pm
    Did You know that you can be Examined over the Internet nowadays ! And sometimes by Multiple Doctors too I've noticed !! :-) :-)
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    9:37pm
    Can I be sure they're all republicans?
    Franky
    25th Jan 2016
    5:09pm
    I don't care either way, but what we do need is political reform. A return to a true democracy would be greatly appreciated. At present we have an American system where the lobbyists call the shots and the public has little say in things that matter. We could have a Canadian model, I believe there no political donations by big business are allowed or at least limited to a certain max. amount, and it has to be open and transparent. Or we could go the Swiss way and introduce public referendum, where anyone can collect a certain amount of signatures and a public referendum will be held. In this system the government puts their case and the public does. And also, when are we going to abolish compulsory voting? This is the most undemocratic policy in Australia, and I believe we may be the only democracy doing it.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    5:19pm
    That was Enforced back in the Gold Mining days Because Nobody would vote ! Because nothing changed if You did or didn't vote ! Not much has changed now when its Compulsory :-( You just get a Different Coloured Pig !! :-) :-)
    Spanna
    25th Jan 2016
    5:33pm
    If the majority want a republic fine, just take into account of the cost in hard cash, This will add up to more than most people think!
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    5:42pm
    It needn't cost a Burnt Peanut ! Just change the Head Honchos name to President :-) And Cross out all the Monarchy Rubbish !!
    Happy Jack
    25th Jan 2016
    5:35pm
    Where the #q@% germsjerk69? Getting worried about him!
    Jim
    25th Jan 2016
    5:44pm
    Hi Leon, is it just a coincidence, that Barak Della Bosca is mentioned in the writings of the Bondi blond bombshell?

    25th Jan 2016
    5:45pm
    Well I'm so pleased that FitzSimons has some support. As I see it, he has just collected 6 votes, not really enough to support the argument that all Australians want a Republic. The Premier of this great state has my support in a lot of what he does but he doesn't speak for me in all things. The vote will need 66.6% support of each state and Territory and all states and territory will need to agree before we become a Republic. Australians by and large have rejected referenda since Federation so this will be interesting to say the least.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    5:58pm
    Wrong!

    In at least thrèè ways.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    8:02pm
    Nice one Barak. Just throw in a line without any proof of the statement and disappear. I saw FitzSimons on TV tell the interviewer that all that was needed was a majority vote in a majority of states. I trust you are not believing his words against our Constitution. Can you enlighten us the three ways I am wrong, I will agree if you are right.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    8:14pm
    FitzSimons is more right than you are. A referendum requires a majority vote in a majority of states, and a majority overall.

    Your 6 votes statement is so idiotic I am not going to try to explain.

    All states and territories do NOT have to agree.

    The 66% figure is just plain wrong.

    That's four mistakes. All in one post. Well done.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    8:42pm
    Thank you Barak, I have checked further and I am wrong in 2 items. You have used the majority argument twice. I still maintain that each Premier agreeing to a Republic is only their vote and not the vote of all voters in their state or territory.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    8:43pm
    Nope.
    roy
    25th Jan 2016
    10:42pm
    I think mohammed should decide.
    dowdy
    25th Jan 2016
    7:05pm
    I thik it very sad that people can fire off insults and not look logically at the issue. people keep saying that we have a Westminster system of government - we do not. The upper house in UK is not elected, as our Senate is; it is the House of Lords, where people are appointed or inherit their position with their title. Some say it should be called a Washminster system, because USA has an elected senate, but Australia's government is unique, and I believe more democratic than lots of other countries.
    We do not have to fork out more money if we have President because the President would replace the Governor General. Having the Prime Minister, or the elected government choose the President, and taking it to Parliament for ratification is a reasonable way of appointing one. Work would have to be done to design the role and function
    Rod63
    25th Jan 2016
    8:26pm
    Spot on!
    Rod63
    25th Jan 2016
    7:11pm
    Absolutely need to become a republic - that goes without saying. So which model? I think we stick with what currently happens. We appoint the President exactly as the Governor General is appointed now. Afterall, he/she will be head-of-state and have no more power than the GG has now.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    7:12pm
    That's the way to do it.
    Rick
    26th Jan 2016
    7:35am
    To do it as now the Queen would have to approve the new President.
    mouse39
    25th Jan 2016
    7:36pm
    Well said Maggie. Good to see the Government of the day is so eager to cut ties with the Monarchy, the rulers a number of my family fought for and under along with the current Aussie flag. They shed blood sweat and tears for this country. A damn republic didn't work in Russia, it didn't work in North Vietnam, it didn't work in Latvia, it didn't work in Yugoslavia, it didn't work in South Yemen. So why the darn hell do you ignorant Politicians think it will work here? Last time I recalled Hitler died, along with Satlin, Marx and Pontious Pilot. Keep taking away or freedom and rights because you want total control to contribute to your hip pockets while you starve the ass out of the poor and bleed us to death. And when we are gone who are you going to bleed then????? And for the record Turnbull was a Laborite.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    7:55pm
    A republic seems to work quite well in the USA, France, and quite a few other European countries.

    What freedom and rights will be taken away by Australia becoming a republic?
    roy
    25th Jan 2016
    10:41pm
    Go away Barak you irritating "man" I think.
    niemakawa
    25th Jan 2016
    10:49pm
    Have you been to USA or France recently? Be careful what you wish for.
    Young
    25th Jan 2016
    7:42pm
    Some of you need to get a life instead of spending all day on this.Go for a walk,join a club,speak to your neighbours,g for a coffee,have a game of tennis,enjoy life.Happy Australia Day to all.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    8:16pm
    Id have to Hobble, My neighbours are Crap, I only drink Tea and tennis is for amusing the cat on Television !
    Have a Good Australia Day !! :-) :-)
    tj
    25th Jan 2016
    8:18pm
    Yes totally agree i only have a look every now and then ,anybody that constantly disagrees with posters time after time after time (person will remain nameless) seriously needs to take note of what you suggest.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    8:23pm
    Did you three know that off-topic posts can be reported?
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    8:43pm
    Yes I think Ill report you for that off topicpost !
    Up the Republic ! There ! That should clear me for not on Subject !! :-)
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    8:47pm
    LOL
    Rod63
    25th Jan 2016
    8:44pm
    Our new Australian of the Year just strongly endorsed a republic. As he said, it's time.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    8:46pm
    That'll upset the conservatives.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    8:51pm
    Australian of the Year :-) :-) :-) I'd never heard of Him ?? :-) :-)
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    8:54pm
    Didn't recognise the name, but he was apparently the guy who back in 2013 ordered soldiers to "get out" of the military if they could not respect women as equals.

    I do recall that story.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    8:56pm
    Well hope is there now of that happening ( Respect Women) with Mooslums in there ?? :-(
    niemakawa
    25th Jan 2016
    8:50pm
    How will Australia be better off under a Republic?. This the real issue. I certainly to do trust any Government to elect a President, that must be done by the people. I agree there are more important matters that Governments need to attend to. The Republic debate can wait.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    8:53pm
    And Wait and Wait !! :-)
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    8:55pm
    But niemakawa, right now the Governor General is a "Captain's Choice" by the PM alone.
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    8:59pm
    No !!! We don't want Rupert !! :-) :-)
    niemakawa
    25th Jan 2016
    9:06pm
    Barak, yes that is true but The GC is not the Head of State and the Queen herself has to approve the Appointment, albeit a formality in most cases. If Australia votes to become a Republic, then it will be a whole new ball game. If that ever occurs I would want the President to be elected by the people.
    Roy
    25th Jan 2016
    9:01pm
    I prefer a model that sees the head of state chosen by the Prime Minister in collaboration with the leader of the opposition,( this bit is important, and is not in the first proposal ) then agreed to by parliament. That way we would be assured the appointment would apolitical.
    The other model would almost ensure that the winner would be the individual with the deepest pockets. I would certainly not want to see happen here, what we see happening in the USA. We could end up with a trump, a palin or even a joke!
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    9:07pm
    When Australia already has the Best Jokes ! :-)
    Dot
    25th Jan 2016
    9:29pm
    Fitzsimon and his wife are refugee lovers, so to hell with them pushing for a republic.
    niemakawa
    25th Jan 2016
    9:31pm
    Yes I agree. Remember any hint of the word "DEMOCRATIC" of a newly formed republic, will actually mean the opposite. Look out for that in any pro-Replublic debate.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    9:34pm
    Dot, that's really not a very objective post. All it shows is massive bigotry and prejudice on your part. And I mean "prejudice" in its literal sense.
    Dot
    25th Jan 2016
    9:38pm
    Back again Barak with same arguments. Your not a bloody true blue
    Aussie are you?
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    9:44pm
    Dunno. What's a true blue Aussie?
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    9:44pm
    :-) Liberal amongst other Anomalies means Individual Freedom and Generous ? I think both these terms apply to the Politicians not the Public !! :-) And I'm sure the Word DEMOCRATIC is mixed in there somewhere too ! :-) I think we've been Duped somewhere along the Line ??
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    9:50pm
    And as for Labor ! There is no such thing ! I think its a Mixture of Lab Rat and Orang-utan ?? :-)

    25th Jan 2016
    9:36pm
    same thing is trotted out every Australia Day - what i found interesting is all state premiers and PM and territory leaders say lets have a republic - thought they were supposed to represent the views of the majority. So Pete Fitsimons says in an interview he thinks there is 50% of the people on side (compared to almost 45% in 1999) - today in 2 independent polls (ninemsn and can't remember the other) votes were 58/59 no to republic and 41/42 for - but even if it was 50/50 - how come ALL politic leaders say YES.
    The republicans are saying they will not force the issue while queen is on throne - and Pete is talking about about 2020- however even he admits its not a done deal in 2020 because there is a view that Kate and William are popular.
    More importantly the republicans have not outlined their model yet - and if it comes down to change for change sake - then people like Alan Jones with his vast following will continue to say NO.
    I will vote NO because I'm yet to hear cogent and coherent argument that we must change -why and if it boils down to a cultural cringe about a union jack in our flag - go away.
    Finally can we all agree on one thing - the NUMBER ONE issue is we are still spending $100M a day more than we are getting in - lets talk about reduced spending - increased taxes and make this priority one to ten - in talking about the economy we can still passionately talk about health, education, defence, social welfare, infrastructure and the duplication between federal.states and local councils - etc
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    9:43pm
    IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FLAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    John Howard never checked what the majority view was while repeatedly telling us how evil a republic would be. He didn't attempt to reflect popular thought. He aimed to drive it.

    In fact, majority view will vary depending on the precise question asked, and Howard used that hugely to his advantage.
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    9:55pm
    the reason I brought the issue of the flag up was that another prominent republican brought up the issue of the flag and the union jack on saturday - he was one of Turnbulls right hand men when he was pushing for a change - for some it is the flag - why - because I've heard them say so.
    Barak - I note in an earlier article above there was a discussiion about meeting the royals - when I was in military in 60s and 70s I had fortune to meet Duke twice - a very nice person - queen much more formal - think Duke enjoyed mixing with us sailors back then.
    Finally no need to put your comments in caps as if your shouting - if you are bugger off !!!
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    9:56pm
    just like his Daylight saving Question in the Only Referendum I can ever Remember ??
    Q... Do you agree or disagree with Daylight Saving ? Please Tick the Box . Yeah OK ? There was only ONE Box :-) :-) :-)
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    10:05pm
    Hey Particolor I don't remember that one (might have been overseas then) - I did vote for aboriginal equal rights in I think 67 (but that was a long time ago) - one of the view referendums votes that have got up
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    10:07pm
    That's true.

    I don't think there's been a national referendum on daylight saving. A state one in Queensland maybe?
    particolor
    25th Jan 2016
    10:10pm
    Yeah I remember a couple of My Aboriginal mates being allowed in the Pub for a Schooner !! :-)
    Anonymous
    25th Jan 2016
    10:26pm
    Sad days - I recall aborigines having a back bar in some places - and i remember in one bar there was a cage door - today i look back in disgust but then it was just the way it was and majority never gave it a second thought - I remember also women couldn't go int to public bar and we talk about bing drinking with youth of today but back then we would drink 5 schooners in the last hour before bar shut at 6pm. You got me thinking - I went to bar straight after dollars and cents came in on 14Feb66 (remember I brought bread for mum and struggled with the new currency value but later that day at pub had a schooner for 16c (sounds cheap but pay was only about $20 a week)
    niemakawa
    25th Jan 2016
    10:45pm
    The Queen is not only The Queen of Australia but is The Queen of each individual State. Each State has her representative The GC. So let each State have a referendum and those that want a republic can go it alone either as separate Countries or combine to form one. Same can apply to those States that vote to remain a Constitutional Monarchy.
    Ok
    28th Jan 2016
    10:33pm
    Why should any Sate keep an outdated institution which is based on racial and religious discrimination? A monarchy is as important to Australia as a tick on the tits of a bull. We know that royalists in Australia are utterly ridiculous.
    mudGecko
    26th Jan 2016
    12:15am
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it! In my considered opinion, there is nothing better than what we have to open hospitals, look at things to make others happy and proud and other NON-POLITICAL tasks.

    The republicans simply want to replace our current system, the best of all possible ones, with another one which rewards venal politicians or bureaucrats or others similar.

    We now have a head of state who, just to summarise off the top of my head: (a) owes no favours to unions or business; (b) is too rich to bribe; (c) costs little to maintain compared to what the republicans have in mind; (d) is a quality person with good standards of behaviour and who has no hatred of "the other side"; (d) is too classy and well-mannered to swear or other low-class behaviour and (e) has no history of ruthless backstabbing, blubbering in public when required and other such political tactics of the labor/left trendies, who are the main agitators for this idiotic change for change's sake.

    No way does this idea make any sense at all, even aside from the doubtless expense of such a foolish enterprise, but that won't stop the usual perpetual inner-city trendy whingers and stirrers from trying it on. God help us.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    5:29am
    That is NOT a considered opinion. It is thoughtless, reactionary conservatism packed in misrepresentation and insults.
    rogerh
    26th Jan 2016
    12:25am
    I am, no doubt going to get flamed by many readers over my comment; but here goes.

    1. Does anyone have contact details for the Monarchists Society?

    2. Should Australia become a republic; would I be able to apply to Britain for political asylum?
    niemakawa
    26th Jan 2016
    12:47am
    1. http://www.monarchist.org.au/

    2. The only chance of getting any form of "Asylum" in Britain is if you are muslim from The "Relgion of Peace" as the Government there calls the cult organisation Islam
    niemakawa
    26th Jan 2016
    12:47am
    1. http://www.monarchist.org.au/

    2. The only chance of getting any form of "Asylum" in Britain is if you are muslim from The "Relgion of Peace" as the Government there calls the cult organisation Islam
    jeffr
    26th Jan 2016
    1:10am
    Have just glanced through ttp://www.monarchist.org.au/ and will read this in depth.....I suggest more readers of this forum do the same and you can do this behind my Barack I mean back, without fear or favour. Interesting reading to say the least.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    5:31am
    Are monarchists too thick to use Google?

    Will they notice the lies and misrepresentations on that site?
    Rick
    26th Jan 2016
    7:41am
    Cavaliers have much prettier dress than Roundheads
    pfbnug
    26th Jan 2016
    3:22am
    If the government of the day wants to alter the constitution, come what may, by a referendum giving them a MANDATE ( really means "to do what they like") why can't we have a referendum to change politicians'' and bureaucrats' pay and perks to what they make us exist on. That would save the country a lot of money!
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    5:33am
    Because politicians' pay is not something covered by the constitution.
    Peter Gillespie
    26th Jan 2016
    7:13am
    We have one of the best countries in the world, which must in part be due to our constitutional monarchy. The republican movement haven't justified why two billion dollars of tax payers money should be spent on changing Australia to some kind of a republic. I feel we should maintain the status quo.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    9:02am
    Two billion dollars?

    Haven't heard that figure. Misrepresentation? Lying? Do provide proof.

    Anyway, I feel it's time for an Australian as head of state.
    Rick
    26th Jan 2016
    7:27am
    I totally support commonsense of Margie .
    Y
    Rick
    26th Jan 2016
    7:38am
    Thank you Mr Whitlam for Making the Queen .. Queen of Australia ..
    Rick
    26th Jan 2016
    8:27am
    Clearly the readers of YLC support no change to our constitution ..
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    9:01am
    Rubbish.

    I've no idea what the numbers would say, but most of the "no change" posts are based on ignorance, false "facts" and poor logic. So I'm sure that sensible discussion and education for such wise people will get them to change their minds.
    PIXAPD
    26th Jan 2016
    9:06am
    AUSTRALIAN OF THE YEAR? I became one of those the day I was born
    PIXAPD
    26th Jan 2016
    9:06am
    Australia’s Constitution is deeply infused with religiosity from the outset. As one of the Constitution’s most distinguished co-authors, Sir John Downer, declared in 1898: “The Commonwealth of Australia will be, from its first stage, a Christian Commonwealth.”

    Like Sir John Downer, many of the other leading writers of the Constitution had strong views on the importance of Christianity to the Commonwealth. For example, Sir Henry Parkes, known as “the Father of Australia’s Federation”, believed that Christianity comprised an essential part of Australia’s common law. In a column published in the Sydney Morning Herald (August 26, 1885), Sir Henry stated: “We are pre-eminently a Christian people — as our laws, our whole system of jurisprudence, our Constitution… are based upon and interwoven with our Christian belief.” NOTE: The Quran denies Christian belief. ALSO a reminder to those who would seek to remove the Lord's prayer from Parliament.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    9:15am
    Please don't post unattributed slabs of text, possibly mixed up with your own thoughts. (Were there any?)

    Who really wrote that stuff?

    I don't even see the relevance of the post to this discussion. The hate comment re Islam also seems irrelevant and would be better suited to the other current thread on Islamophobia.
    particolor
    26th Jan 2016
    9:43am
    O FGS lets cut to the Chase and make it a Caliphate !! :-(
    better sooner than later !!
    How much longer have we gotta put up with their BS inflicted upon us by Blind Polly's !! :-( :-(
    niemakawa
    26th Jan 2016
    5:57pm
    The Qaran has no place in a civilised society Christian or otherwise.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    6:09pm
    What a silly, bigoted and offensive comment.

    Obviously many people you would not even recognise as Muslim, and who you would regard as very civilised Australians, regard it as their holy book.

    Do you really mean to so offend them?
    niemakawa
    26th Jan 2016
    6:20pm
    Barak, I said the Qaran. Many Muslims do do read it same as Chrisitans many do not read the bible. Dear chap, please read comments carefully before you reply.
    niemakawa
    26th Jan 2016
    6:20pm
    Barak, I said the Qaran. Many Muslims do do read it same as Chrisitans many do not read the bible. Dear chap, please read comments carefully before you reply.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    6:24pm
    Sorry. I AM confused. Is there a typo in that response?

    I've re-read your initial comment and still think it's a bit off.

    Mind you, I think both the Koran and the Bible are problematic, but I don't believe in banning books.
    niemakawa
    26th Jan 2016
    6:30pm
    Barak, you do not believe in banning books. Does your belief only apply to books circulating in Australia? In Saudi Arabia even taking a Bible into that country is forbidden. Severe punishment or even death, if caught with the "offending" article, is almost certain.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    6:34pm
    Yep. Completely unacceptable. Just like an awful lot of other things that happen there.
    particolor
    26th Jan 2016
    9:24pm
    you'd have to be Stoned to take a Bible into Saudi Arabia !
    And if you weren't You soon would be ! :-(
    Rick
    26th Jan 2016
    9:11am
    Problem with plebiscites When Australia voted for a national song in a plebiscite Out of 8.5 million on the rolls 2.7 million voted for the bloody awful Advance Australia fair and that's what we got .
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    9:18am
    We're discussing a referendum, not a plebiscite.

    A referendum explicitly changes the constitution.

    A plebiscite is simply a non-binding guide to the government on a matter.
    Rick
    26th Jan 2016
    12:21pm
    We have had a referendum and a republic was rejected .
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    1:26pm
    And we'll probably keep having them until it is accepted.

    There will be 5 million new voters this time round. I think they're entitled to a say.
    particolor
    26th Jan 2016
    9:32pm
    I think a lot of them are already having a Say !! :-(
    Anonymous
    27th Jan 2016
    3:39am
    Ain't fee speech wonderful?
    Hawkeye
    26th Jan 2016
    9:46am
    After checking my emails this morning, I have just deleted 213 notifications that people have posted about this article.
    Of those, a full 80 (that's a whopping 37.6%) were from Mr Obama.

    Please Barak, give it a rest mate. I know your American job is about to end, but we don't want a bloody yank running our country.
    particolor
    26th Jan 2016
    9:58am
    OY ! OY !!!
    Appy Straya Day !! :-)

    My Delete Buttons worn out too !! :-) :-)
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    10:02am
    Hawkeye -you can't spell
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    11:09am
    hawkeye - I posted 3 so sorry but here is another:-

    this was from a professor discussing pros and cons - I found it very insightful


    As Henry says – it’s the silly season; that time of year when stupidity strikes. Easy to understand, after a long break and the Christmas leftovers are fermenting in the fridge and facing the prospect of returning to work, the politicians have to have something for show and tell. Scott Morrison kicked off yesterday with a very poor showing on Sky News. This morning the State Premiers and Territory Chief Ministers were on about The Republic.

    All but one state and territory leader has declared support for an Australian head of state as republicans ramp up their push for the question to be put to voters by 2020.

    Only West Australian Premier Colin Barnett declined to sign the declaration, despite supporting a republic.

    The Australian Republican Movement dubbed the document, in which the leaders ­affirm their belief Australia should have an Australian head of state, as a “declaration of desired independence”.

    As if Australia isn’t already independent – We can quibble about gory details but Australia has been an independent nation since the 1931 Statute of Westminster. That the Australian Republican Movement has so little understanding of constitutional history reflects poorly on them. But I digress …

    The more interesting thing is that there is nothing stopping any of the States (I’m not sure about the Territories) from immediately severing their ties with the Australian Crown and establishing their own Republics within the Commonwealth. So let them lead by example.

    As an aside Menzies was a leading figure for 1931 Statute ( a big deal back then - as it was the closest thing to breaking away from Britain (for a while the labor party opposed it - don't know why)
    SRJ
    26th Jan 2016
    10:32am
    @BigKev There is NO provision for the State Governors to be abolished under a Republic mate.
    Jude
    26th Jan 2016
    11:01am
    Totally agree with the first comment, by Margie. The Queen is Head of Australia in theory, but in practice it is the Prime Minister. What benefit would there be in becoming a republic? Yes we would save money by not having a governor-general and state governors but there would be other huge expenses that would be far greater. Anyway, why do we need state governors, why not just the gg as the governor of Australia- but that's another question. Imagine the expense if we were to become a republic- whole constitution would have to be changed, voting system would have to be changed, our Aussie flag would have to be changed. I assume we would no longer be part of the Commonwealth Ganes. And surely nobody would really want the current PM as President!!! I'm hoping his own electorate will vote him out of office next election! My family members and friends only number a few hundred but I know not one of those eligible to vote will be voting for the coalition, purely because of Turnbull.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    11:07am
    Jude - for around the tenth time in this discussion, there is no connection between becoming a republic and changing the flag, and the Commonwealth contains many republics.

    It's really sad that the same ignorant points are trotted out by so many every time this issue is raised. Rarely too do any of those I correct thank me for doing so. They probably ignore me and post the same garbage next time.
    Jude
    26th Jan 2016
    1:01pm
    I was under the impression that this site was for our opinions on the given topics. My opinion is that if we are a republic and therefore no longer a member of the Commonwealth then we have no right to the use of the Union Jack on our Flag. My opinion also is that we would not have the right to have the Queen's image on our currency. I have not read all of the comments above, just browsed through a few, so my apologies to anybody else who is upset by my having repeated what someone else had said. Thank you Barak? For what? For referring to my opinion as garbage? I think not, but thank you for helping to decide to unsubscribe to this site.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    1:34pm
    Your opinion is garbage because it's based on falsehood's and poor logic, not because it's different from mine.

    I've already pointed out that the Commonwealth contains many republics.

    The Republic of Fiji still uses the Union jack on its flag. The US state of Hawaii does too.
    Anthony
    26th Jan 2016
    11:06am
    I basically agree with Margie, But why do we need a separate Head of State, we have a Prime Minister change the name to President of Australia, if you want a Republic, it's a waste of Public money to have a Head of State with no power. Like him/Her or not, they are the elected Head of this Country, let them get on with it.
    SRJ
    26th Jan 2016
    11:07am
    NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! That would TOTALLY politicise our Head of State and make a mockery of the Separation of Powers we do, to a great degree, enjoy today!
    ex PS
    26th Jan 2016
    11:18am
    Why assume that we need a Prime Minister and a President? Surely a republic only needs a President, who is the Prime Minister of the USA?
    For those in favour of becoming a Republic, show some guts, stop trying to have a bet each way.
    Or is it that you are afraid that you can't show an example of a Republic that works as well as the Westminster System.
    It seems that those who want a Republic need to put some effort into planning the process and demonstrating to the Australian people how a Republic would work and how many of our laws will have to change to accomodate the change. Will the Constitution hae be rewritten, are the Aboriginal people going to be recognised as the first inhabitants, how will they be compensated if they are?
    It seems to me that it will be a little bit harder than just sacking the Queen and her representatives and changing from a commonwealth to a Republic. The Republican movement has a lot of work to do to prove their cause.
    If they do I will be the happy to support them.
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    11:21am
    Stop trying to change the subject to the Aboriginal question. It's irrelevant to the basic issue here.
    particolor
    26th Jan 2016
    11:45am
    The Aboriginal of Today are Not the Original Inhabitants of Australia ! So what happened to the Original Ancient Australians is anybody's Guess ??
    ex PS
    26th Jan 2016
    11:48am
    Fair go Barak, I am not trying to change the subject, I am merely pointing out that becoming a Republic is not a simple matter of changing the company letterhead.
    If any one is going to change the subject to the matter of Aboriginal issues it is you because that is the aspect of the point I was making that you chose to concentrate on.
    The point is, if a person or organisation wishes to change the way we govern our country they have to put together a logical well thought out process for doing so. Otherwise they deserve to fail.
    ex PS
    26th Jan 2016
    11:59am
    particolor, fair comment.
    particolor
    26th Jan 2016
    12:12pm
    Well Im sick of people Jumping up and down about Race and Religion ! :-( We are Creatures of a Planet and nothing more !!:-)
    Greed and Hierarchy are more Rampant than ever !! :-( :-(
    Sort that Mess out first and we might Begin to get somewhere ! :-)
    Kopernicus
    26th Jan 2016
    12:50pm
    There is one important thing to consider in this debate - who are Australians? Well, we're no longer the Anglo entity we were to start with. That's history, much has changed since WW2 when we actively sought to boost our population with a very active programme of immigration having realised we were so vulnerable with so few people. 2011 census revealed that about half of us to be either overseas born or with at least one OS born parent. Moreover, current migration rates reveal Brits coming a long 8th in the cue led by India and China, further accentuating growth of the non Anglo character of our population.
    Yes, the migration pattern has emphasised Asian intake since the 70's Viet boat people and will over time result in more ethnic change.

    So, if you tell someone to "go back where you came from", you're not just rude but also an idiot, with almost half of us relatively newly arrived. It would of course make perfect sense for an Aboriginal person to utter such sentiment, no one else. Australia Day may seem a bitter pill to them, they need representation on the flag, in my view.

    Speaking of which, had a ride by a park this morn and checked out a Lions snag BBQ festooned with 'Aussie" flags. Well, actually they were small pennants with big Union Jack on blue background, no stars. Surely we can do better than this pathetic umbilicus image. Canada hoiked the Jack in 1965, NZ are about to, why don't we? It will be for all Australians, not just those with Brit blood - that's history.

    Given this current and further developing demographic, it does seem bizzare to have a foreign monarch as head of state and their flag on our flag. I'm not born here and view the advantage of change as an opportunity to redefine ourselves as we actually exist now, a truly independent nation no longer a colony or a teen nation sent spuriously to various wars by Mother England.

    Yes, it's crucial to have a good debate about the form of government should take. The last referendum was a deliberate ploy by a Union Jack arm band of history proponent - John Hubris Howard. I favour appointment rather than an election which may allocate too much power in what should be a figure head.
    SUELL
    26th Jan 2016
    2:17pm
    A minimalist Republic with a Governor General chosen by the Prime Minister I like. We have had some truly excellent Governors General, with a notable single exception, and it seems to me that those who have served as Governor General, since we have had Australians in the position, would be a national representative that we could all be proud of. A symbolic Head of State but an Australian Head of State.
    I have nothing against the Royal Family but I don't feel they represent me. If at the Rio Olympics or other international event I see any Royal cheering for an Australian to win over a Brit or Canadian or New Zealander then I might change my mind.
    We can be proud of our history but lets not move into the future on the basis of who we like in the Windsor family to be our Head of State. I would also support remaining in the Commonwealth because it is a worthy organisation that has much to contribute to the issues of today and into the future.
    AL18
    26th Jan 2016
    2:50pm
    Thank you Margie. In addition to a wage, don't forget the pension benefits that will follow. If it is anything like the current politicians' scheme the taxpayer will be spending far more. I am all in favor of doing away with the GG but then lets go all the way & get rid of Local Councils as well.Two levels of government is sufficient as long as the Public Service and wage levels are kept to a minimum. But then, I guess that far too much to expect from any side of politics!!
    fish head
    26th Jan 2016
    3:31pm
    We had a referendum on this topic not too long ago and people got to make their choice. Why does this topic continue to rear its ugly head, over and over again? The umpire has spoken, give us a break. Besides which, referendums are not cheap. Let's use the money saved where it is needed. Do we really need a law stipulating how long a time between these exercises in futility?
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    3:37pm
    If we had a referendum today, there would be people eligible to vote in it who were only just born at the time of the last one. I'd guess maybe 5 million new voters who didn't get a say in 1999.

    It seems reasonable to me to give them a turn expressing their opinion now.
    Rick
    26th Jan 2016
    5:58pm
    Yep let's keep voting until you get thE result you want ..the people who have arrived here since1999 do they have a full understanding of our history and traditions .
    Anonymous
    26th Jan 2016
    6:11pm
    Hey. There's an idea. Test people's knowledge of our history and traditions before allowing them to vote.

    I'd actually support that. Can I write the test?
    niemakawa
    26th Jan 2016
    9:41pm
    Barak, and in how many languages, may I ask?
    Anonymous
    27th Jan 2016
    3:53am
    I don't see the point of the question.
    Hawkeye
    26th Jan 2016
    8:08pm
    Well Barak, you've succeeded in changing my attitude today.

    I started the day not caring whether we change or not (except I'd rather not have to put up with the inevitable costs and politicising that would accompany a change).

    But mate, if you are an example of the radical republican misfits amongst us, then I am now a confirmed monarchist. Thanks for opening my eyes. (LOL)

    'on yer Margie
    Hawkeye
    26th Jan 2016
    11:19pm
    Well good luck with that Barak seeing as how you are the reigning king of personal abuse.

    Just a sample from your postings today;
    1. "Your opinion is garbage" posted to Jude
    2. "Are monarchists too thick to use Google?" posted to rogerh
    3. "That is NOT a considered opinion. It is thoughtless" posted to mudGecko
    4. "Unfortunately, there's'an awful lot of arrogant ignorance and absolute illogical crap on display here." posted to margw5

    Need I continue?
    Hawkeye
    26th Jan 2016
    11:25pm
    Sorry Barak. I called you a king. You definately would take that as personal abuse.
    Perhaps you would feel better with "you are the reigning president of personal abuse"
    jeffr
    27th Jan 2016
    12:15am
    Methinks it,s the pot calling the kettle black ...Barak...but report me as well because you certainly have (in my view) taken all comments as a personal insult and I have taken all your comments as an insult to me. However I would not report you....it's all part of growing up even at my age.
    niemakawa
    27th Jan 2016
    12:30am
    Barak, surely a person with your wisdom would have seen that coming. Maybe you will learn from it and allow others to freely have their opinion, even it some may not be to your liking.
    PIXAPD
    27th Jan 2016
    2:13am
    Always someone wanting to cut off heads (so to speak) if they do not like a comment. I cited the SMH from 1885 and get 'who really wrote that stuff.' The Quran denies the Christian gospel, and I get, 'the hate comment re Islam'..... yet my comment was and is true. Just enforces my belief that a fifth column is at work in Australia, working against Australia, be they Republicans or terrorists. How's that then?
    niemakawa
    27th Jan 2016
    2:14am
    PIXAPD, That is fine. I do agree that there are forces out there trying to stop free speech, and any point or argument that is different to want they want to "hear" is frowned upon, to the point that a "criminal offence has occurred.
    Anonymous
    27th Jan 2016
    3:50am
    PIXAPD - wrong thread.

    To the other complainers, I can cope extremely well with different opinions, but not when they are arrogantly based on falsehoods and wilful ignorance.

    If I am criticising someone's opinion for such a reason, I try to make the reason clear. Then it isn't personal abuse. It is criticism of sloppy thinking. If I have failed to put it in such context, I apologise.

    However, calling me a radical republican misfit is straight out, unjustified abuse.
    particolor
    27th Jan 2016
    3:47pm
    Ah ! That's Nothing ! :-) I think I'm now a Rude Idiot ! I rather like the Title ! :-) :-)
    particolor
    27th Jan 2016
    4:16pm
    If the Freeby speech comes from one of us "Filthy Kafir" :-) Its "Hate Speech" :-(
    But if its from a "Refthugee" Ranting about Our Laws and We are here to take over Bla Bla Etc. that's fine Its only a New Arrival Expressing their Views. < In My best Poly Speak !! :-) :-)
    Hawkeye
    30th Jan 2016
    12:30am
    Hey Barak
    I just noticed that your reply above stating you had "reported me for personal abuse" has been removed.
    Was it pulled by you or by the forum moderator.
    Either way, my comment appears vindicated.
    I guess they're correct when they say "what goes around comes around"
    bartpcb
    27th Jan 2016
    10:14am
    A minimalist republic model, would be the better model, where the Prime Minister selects a Governor-General as head of state, which would then need to be approved by Parliament.
    The thought of having an American style system where the most charismatic person is elected by the will of the media acting on the minds of the public is distasteful to say the least.
    particolor
    27th Jan 2016
    3:53pm
    Most of the Words Captains & Crews have gone Stark Raving Mad in the Wheelhouse, and will run the Planet onto the Rocks ! :-(
    Anonymous
    27th Jan 2016
    9:39pm
    bartpcb - your suggestion makes sense to me.

    I have no idea what particolor's talking about. But I'm not stressing too much.
    niemakawa
    27th Jan 2016
    9:48pm
    Barak, Australia day is over. The Republican issue will not come up again until the next AD. And try to get a sense of humour he may not make you feel so bitter.
    pfbnug
    28th Jan 2016
    3:48am
    The pollies have dragged out that hoary old chestnut of Australia becoming a republic again. The sycophantic, simpering simpletons of the Looney Left are again bleating their outrage at being a constitutional monarchy. It is patently obvious that the facts of the matter are beyond their meager capacity for seeing what real life is about. The pollies always want to change the constitution because , although its protection is comparatively meager for our citizens, it does have the capacity to block some of their more outlandish plots. I am a loyalist because I believe that the Queen, like her predecessors, provided a good role model for statesmanship. However, changing to a republic per se will not greatly affect us in our daily life. What raises my ire is that the pollies always scream about the cost of a referendum when the issue is about something serious – pollies’ pay and perks, unchecked immigration and immediate full access to better- than- Australians social security, aboriginal land rights, following the USA into conflicts which are not our concern, the National Debt, Foreign Aid programmes etc., The list goes on and on. The answer is always that it is too expensive to hold a referendum. Come on!
    Anonymous
    28th Jan 2016
    4:24am
    Congratulations on insulting so much of the population in one post, outrageously full of populist, simplistic generalizations.
    particolor
    28th Jan 2016
    9:26am
    A BIGOT is someone who disagree Profoundly with someone Right to Free Speech as displayed above ! :-) :-)
    Adrianus
    28th Jan 2016
    1:39pm
    Somebody once said .....blind belief in Authority is the greatest enemy of truth. :)
    particolor
    28th Jan 2016
    3:21pm
    It was George Washingmachine !
    Gee Whiz
    28th Jan 2016
    11:58am
    Well said Margie. The old adage applies here "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

    The cost this country to convert to a Republic will be gigantic. It will make the current deficit look like pocket change. And the rorters will be lined up like pigs at feeding time to bury their hands in the taxpayers trough.

    The political con artists, the fraudsters and the bottom feeders who inhabit the muck of the gene pool will be waiting with open arms if this unnecessary change-over takes place. And when the dust settles we will find once again that we have all been duded and asked to pay more taxes to clean up the wreckage of another political disaster.
    Anonymous
    29th Jan 2016
    10:46pm
    When a foreigner is our head of state, It's obviously broken.

    So it needs fixing.
    Ok
    28th Jan 2016
    1:54pm
    Australia is a country which values fairness and equality in all aspects of life. A monarchy is based on racial and religious discrimination and does no longer meet community standards. Only people of Australia have the right to be the head of state and not some foreign Billionaires.
    Gee Whiz
    28th Jan 2016
    2:20pm
    But its all right to have a millionaire narcissistic Prime Minister in charge who proudly boasted on the floor of Parliament that he operates 0ff shore tax havens to avoid paying tax.

    The system is working fine. Leave it alone.
    Ok
    28th Jan 2016
    4:45pm
    Gee Whiz_ No it does NOT WORK! Royalism does discriminate on base of race and religion. Australia does not mean anything which argues that one family living in England is better than all 22 Million people of Australia. Only well trained dogs and royalists bow to another human being.
    I think every royalist in Australia is truly ridiculous.
    ex PS
    28th Jan 2016
    6:46pm
    Yet we let billionaire American newspaper barrons tell us how to vote?
    I personally can't remember the last time I bowed to a British Royal, but I can guarantee that even if Australia was a repubic our representatives would still bow to the royal family, its called diplomatic protocol and is practiced world wide.
    Do we not argue that the PM is better than the average Australian?
    Ok
    28th Jan 2016
    10:22pm
    Media baron do benefit from the royal circus as much as the royals. It is easy to get stories about the royals to sell to gullible naive royalists. They all love to hear stories about their lovely princes and princesses. Cute and naive royalist have not been able to provide a single valid argument why a institution based on racism and religious discrimination should continue in a country like Australia. Every Australian has a more deserving right to be the head of state than all the foreign royals.
    Royalists in Australia are utterly ridiculous.
    particolor
    28th Jan 2016
    10:35pm
    :-) :-) A lot of them think they are even Related to them ! :-)
    They walk around Pymble and Co with their Snoot in the air !! :-) :-)
    niemakawa
    29th Jan 2016
    12:50am
    "There she goes with her nose in the air, funny how love can be...."
    ex PS
    29th Jan 2016
    4:06pm
    And the reason stories about the royal family are printed is that they are popular, otherwise they wouldn,t bother printing them.
    I suppose you would prefer stories about the US royal family, the Kardashians?
    Have you ever stopped to consider that a lot of people who do.n't want a Republic are not royalists, they just want some detail before making the change?
    I think that you are extremely naive if you think religion and racism don't play a part in Australian politics. Just look at the political leverage both major partys have accessed through vilifying those fleeing oppression in their own countries.
    Hunter
    28th Jan 2016
    2:36pm
    Question . Is Barak related to Mr Goldman Sachs / Turncoat Turnbull or is Barak "el presidente" of ARM ? At present we are protected by "The Constitution" that has served us well - put together by more "forward thinkers" than ARM who would dearly love to see these protections eliminated . Would Barak prefer a "republic" similar to the Peoples Republic of China ? Please feel free ( pardon the pun) to check out Larry Hannigan's Voice of the Australian Constitution http://www.larryhannigan.com/VOC.htm
    Ok
    28th Jan 2016
    4:49pm
    WE don't need a President but we need to have our own head of state. There is nothing wrong to call the head of state a Governor General, but he or she must be Australian and NOT A FOREIGNER! Australia needs to become a Republic soon.
    particolor
    28th Jan 2016
    4:57pm
    South American Style !! :-) :-)
    Reggie
    28th Jan 2016
    6:18pm
    I think we have all had a solid debate about the pros and cons of Royalists and Republican's debate, lets get fair dinkum and move on as all the procrastination on this subject has got all of us nowhere. Lets move onto another subject, as the only way of changing things is via a referendum, with the correctly worded information, "Are you in favour of a change to to the constitution to become a Republic with a yes and a no box. this would solve the argument. Lets move onto a fresh idea...
    Reggie
    28th Jan 2016
    6:18pm
    I think we have all had a solid debate about the pros and cons of Royalists and Republican's debate, lets get fair dinkum and move on as all the procrastination on this subject has got all of us nowhere. Lets move onto another subject, as the only way of changing things is via a referendum, with the correctly worded information, "Are you in favour of a change to to the constitution to become a Republic with a yes and a no box. this would solve the argument. Lets move onto a fresh idea...
    niemakawa
    28th Jan 2016
    6:27pm
    There will be no need for either in the not too distant future. Agenda 21 has different plans for us and Mr Turnbull was a signatory to the agreement at the UN meeting in Paris last November. Albeit under the guise of "Climate Change". God save the Queen.
    particolor
    28th Jan 2016
    10:22pm
    For who will save Mr Turnbull :-)
    pfbnug
    29th Jan 2016
    4:11am
    I see Mr Barak is still posting negative comments about all who don't just roll over and do it his silly way. "For those that understand, no explanation is necessary. For those that do not understand, no explanation is sufficient!"
    niemakawa
    29th Jan 2016
    4:40am
    Maybe he listens and sings out loud to himself to Frank Sinatra's rendition of:

    I'll do it my way" followed by his "and so will you".

    All in front of a mirror, no doubt.

    I am a monarchist, but do not expect everyone else to be.
    niemakawa
    29th Jan 2016
    4:41am
    Maybe he listens and sings out loud to himself to Frank Sinatra's rendition of:

    I'll do it my way" followed by his "and so will you".

    All in front of a mirror, no doubt.

    I am a monarchist, but do not expect everyone else to be.
    Anonymous
    29th Jan 2016
    6:09am
    Pathetic, from both of you.

    I AM NOT THE TOPIC HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    niemakawa
    29th Jan 2016
    7:20am
    You seem to think you are, your excessive posts and all critical of others'. You ,in my opinion, are the pathetic one. Try to understand your views are not the be and end all. God save the Queen.
    Anonymous
    29th Jan 2016
    7:07pm
    I criticise other posters' OPINIONS, not the posters themselves. I criticise those opinions when they are based on nothing, or false "facts", or wilful ignorance.

    You cannot negate a message by shooting the messenger.
    Ok
    29th Jan 2016
    9:26am
    It is easier to herd feral cats then having an argument with royalists. There is not a single true proud Australian who wants a foreigner to have more rights then all of us. All of us are as good as the queen or any of her family members but are more deserving to be the head of state as we are AUSTRALIANS.
    Hawkeye
    29th Jan 2016
    12:48pm
    OK, so you would rather have someone like Tony Abbott as president.

    I can just hear the back-room deals that would have gone on if we were a republic last year;
    "Hey Mal, I'll go quietly if you promise to make me the pres"
    "Done deal Tones. as long as when you're the pres, you talk up the need to bump-up the taxes. After all mate, we could both use a bit of a wage boost, and that way the plebs can pay for it"

    You republic pushers seem to forget that any new system will be SET UP BY POLITICIANS (or their cronies), and therefore will be SET UP FOR POLITICIANS.
    It will also provide them with an opportunity to destroy the checks and balances built in to the Constitution and deriving from the Magna Carta, which are there to prevent them from running roughshod over us, and provide a basis for stable democratic government.

    I am actually very proud of being Australian. And part of being an Australian is to embrace our unique system of government. To change it will be to fundamentally change Australia and Australians. Why? Don't you like Australia?

    I am neither republican or monarchist (as stated elsewhere, I don’t give rat's a!@# about it) but I do know that politicians will politicise the change process, and I don't think we should give them that opportunity.

    If someone wants to work out all the details (with costings) for the change process (a truly mammoth task), including a proposed new Constitution and/or Bill-of-Rights, and present them, along with compelling reasons to change, then that may be the time for a referendum.
    But I truly think there is less chance of it passing at the present time because people's trust in politicians is much lower now after living through the short Tony and Joe era. I for one will continue to vote NO if no details are forthcoming, and no compelling reasons for change are presented.

    Even Barak, with his hundreds of posts, the only reason he has put forward for change is (and I quote) "Anyway, I feel it's time for an Australian as head of state." Good one Barak (LOL).
    Let's spend billions to appease you and your little thought bubble.
    Let's all follow Barak and OK and the ARM like lemmings.
    Let's change Australia into something which it is not.
    Reggie
    29th Jan 2016
    12:51pm
    All this nit picking is ridiculous. I think if we all agree to disagree, then end this loyalist republican discussion. We are unable to change anything at this time. Next subject please.
    Anonymous
    29th Jan 2016
    7:09pm
    Hawkeye - you seem to not understand what a referendum is. It's where the public, not the politicians, decide what's in the constitution.
    Ok
    29th Jan 2016
    8:52pm
    Hawkeye- You do not need to worry. In Australia there is no law which makes it illegal to believe in the monarchy. You know that a monarchy in Australia lacks any logic and that all monarchists in Australia are utterly ridiculous.
    Hawkeye
    29th Jan 2016
    11:58pm
    Barak, you are the one who does not understand how a referendum works.
    A referendum is a request for politicians to be trusted to make changes to our constitution, using the broadest terminology that they think they can get away with. Such changes are normally off limits to them.
    If approval is given, then the politicians have the freedom to propose a law containing the changes which THEY want, and to bring the changed constitution into effect. The public has no part in deciding the detail or final form of the changes made. There is no provision in Australian government for the public to decide on any laws, despite what some may think.

    The actual question in the 1999 referendum was;
    Do you approve of 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.

    Very little detail given, as with all referendums. But at least Howard was honest enough to tie down the method of appointment of the president, and the republicans have never forgiven him for this.
    Hawkeye
    30th Jan 2016
    12:44am
    OK,
    did you mistake the blue pills for the red ones again.
    Get a good nights sleep and the brain might fire up tomorrow.
    Anonymous
    30th Jan 2016
    5:26am
    Hawkeye - I don't even know who that was directed at, but it's clearly nothing more than a personal attack on somebody, so I've reported it.

    When you cannot write anything more useful than that, you probably shouldn't be trying to contribute.
    Hawkeye
    30th Jan 2016
    12:47pm
    Barak, can you not read? It was clearly directed at OK (clue - OK's name appears at the start), who is very quickly overtaking you as the king of abuse.
    Have you got your pills mixed up as well?
    Or are you just jealous of OK?

    And again, good luck with the reporting mate. On Tuesday when you reported me it was YOUR comment that got pulled NOT MINE (LOL)

    For those that missed it, on Tuesday Barak reported me for personal abuse because I referred to him as "an example of the radical republican misfits amongst us".
    Let's have a vote. Was I indulging in personal abuse, or was I merely stating the obvious?
    bobby
    29th Jan 2016
    12:56pm
    I am 88 years old and have had plenty of time to think this out. I agree with Margie, completely.
    Ok
    29th Jan 2016
    8:47pm
    If you want to support a system based on racial and religious discrimination then it is up to you. I just hope that one day you may realise that all people on this globe are born as equals.
    Hawkeye
    29th Jan 2016
    1:12pm
    Zaphod Beeblebrox for president.

    If the number 42 means anything to you, then you know what I'm talking about.
    Circum
    29th Jan 2016
    5:19pm
    Agree with Margie.Who needs another expensive level of government to satisfy the ideological thoughts of some.Any cost/benefit analysis would show having a president as a dumb idea.Like it or not we have an English history.To all would be rebels..Get over it.
    Anonymous
    29th Jan 2016
    7:10pm
    It's not another level of government. In fact, it would mean one less.
    niemakawa
    29th Jan 2016
    10:07pm
    Yes, we have an English history and that must never be forgotten. The British built this Country under harsh conditions so everyone,from wherever they come, who lives here should be forever grateful. Several extra layers of Government more than likely. God save the Queen.
    Anonymous
    29th Jan 2016
    10:23pm
    No niemakawa, that is not a rational post.

    It's more like a religious adoration.
    Ok
    29th Jan 2016
    10:35pm
    Nol, it will be cheaper. We still have a GG but we won't have to feed and house rich freeloading royals and their families. It will save Millions and give makes Australia proud. We are Australia and NOT England!
    We don't have English history, but Australian history.
    Reggie
    29th Jan 2016
    10:34pm
    Barak, just checked posts made here. 1 was a posted comment the rest were reports. I may be 1 or 2 either way with the figures at this time as I haven't rechecked. First report 4.07 p.m 25th January last report 29th Jan at 7.10 p.m Of the reports/posts I noted that 73 were negative responses, 21 were positive, 3 appeared irrelevant and 6 were funny. You were right about the 5 million people - 5.05 million according to figures, not all would be those born in 1999. As you agree this is a forum for discussion and many of the posts made valid points about (possible changes to a variety of subjects that could come in being if the constitution was changed. I do agree with you that our current constitution was not the first. However the Australia Act 1986 removed the power of the United Kingdom parliament to change the Constitution as in force in Australia, and the Constitution can now only be changed in accordance with the prescribed referendum procedures in Section 128. I and many others would be pleased if you would POST not report what you truly believe Australia should be be and give some reason why. No Royalist bashing, just positive reasons for your answer. You may gain a bit more credibilty on this forum.
    Reggie
    Ok
    29th Jan 2016
    10:37pm
    Australia is no place for ridiculous royalists. Royalism is a cult based on racial and religious discrimination and has no place in Australia.
    Anonymous
    29th Jan 2016
    10:43pm
    Reggie, thanks for the well informed, somewhat on-topic post. I will continue to report posts that are about me, rather than the nominated topic. That's against the rules, and never aids effective discussion.

    Yours was a bit each way. For some reason you still felt the need to talk about me in part of your post.

    I try very hard to comment on what people write , rather than about those people. Sometimes they write absolute nonsense, so I say just that. Or they give an opinion, and try to justify it with claims that are simply not true. Or their posts will display appallingly poor logic. I will point that out.

    It's not the same as directly criticising the poster as a human being. I get that a lot.
    jeffr
    30th Jan 2016
    2:44am
    Barak...if that is your real name??? What I believe that most people are saying they are sick and tired of the majority of politicians of all parties taking advantage of the present constitution. Thus they DO NOT WANT another layer of government in the guise of the Republic of Australia who will only be YET ANOTHER layer of bottom feeders. I am not a Royalist but have realised it's the best of a poor choice.
    Anonymous
    30th Jan 2016
    5:34am
    jeffr - It's really annoying when people post as if the previous 20 or so posts had not been made.

    We currently have a Governor General (and retinue) here in a Australia AND a royal family in the UK.

    Replacing them (and hopefully all the state governors too) with a single President, will clearly remove a layer of government, rather than adding one.

    I hope you're wrong when you claim that most people are thinking think the same way as you. That would mean most people are thinking very illogically. And I think most Australians are smarter than that.
    Hawkeye
    30th Jan 2016
    1:13pm
    Yet another personal attack by Barrak because jeffr had the audacity to present a clear, concise, well thought opinion, which unfortunately made more sense than what Barak can come up with.
    Anonymous
    30th Jan 2016
    1:29pm
    Where is the personal attack?
    jeffr
    30th Jan 2016
    5:01pm
    I also find it annoying reading posts of a one-sided republican view who always has an answer if that particular post is not to his or her satisfaction. Reminds me so much of politics where they appear not wanting to work for the benefit of democracy and fail to understand the meaning of Consensus.
    Anonymous
    30th Jan 2016
    5:07pm
    I also find it annoying reading posts from conservatives, that are attacks on everyone they disagree with (because they don't have the courage to name an individual), without any real content at all.
    jeffr
    30th Jan 2016
    5:23pm
    Barak....would you like me to name "Barak"who in my mind is a Royalist and could not care about consensus. Shall I name Turnbull who uses the words quote The scheme they have for allowances for politicians staying in Canberra is a per diem amount regardless of where you stay"..end of quote. WhomI believe is a politician (like many others) who are in politics for themselves. Shall I name Rudd and Shorten who both (I believe) helped de-stabilise serving governments. Then again this has nothing to do with your Republic Push so you had better report me for answering your question in full.
    jeffr
    30th Jan 2016
    5:49pm
    Barak...please forgive me for calling you a "Royalist"it should have been "Republican"......but what's in a name?
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2016
    4:40am
    jeffr - do please try to get somewhere back near the topic in what you post.
    Reggie
    30th Jan 2016
    6:31pm
    Barak, I am not being critical here, however your comments appear to have narcissism as a core of your comments. By the way do you have a mirror (sic) LOL
    Hawkeye
    30th Jan 2016
    7:27pm
    Agree Reggie.

    BARAK, ARE YOU A NARCASSIST?

    Please answer truthfully.
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2016
    4:37am
    I am not the topic here.
    pfbnug
    31st Jan 2016
    4:03am
    Let's stop kicking this dog to death! The choice is simple - vote yes for a Republic and give the pollies a chance to revise the constitution and get even more power OR vote "No!" and maintain the status quo, however bad that is.
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2016
    5:31am
    Comments like "Let's stop kicking this dog to death!" really don't add much to the discussion.

    And yet again, a referendum is when the voters change the constitution, not the pollies.
    pfbnug
    31st Jan 2016
    4:03am
    Let's stop kicking this dog to death! The choice is simple - vote yes for a Republic and give the pollies a chance to revise the constitution and get even more power OR vote "No!" and maintain the status quo, however bad that is.
    jeffr
    31st Jan 2016
    12:35pm
    Barak....You just do not get it.....the majority of readers simply do not trust politicians and politicians do not even trust each other. This is evident to most people.Until true democracy, consensus and TRUST eventuates most people will prefer to stay as we are.
    Anonymous
    31st Jan 2016
    1:07pm
    I don't trust politicians either.

    What does that have to do with a referendum?

    And you have no right to claim "most people will prefer to stay as we are." That would be the point of a referendum. To find out. Not wanting one suggests you're scared of what the answer might be.
    Rick
    1st Feb 2016
    11:03am
    We already had one . The answer was no ..
    Anonymous
    1st Feb 2016
    6:37pm
    By the time of the next one it will be twenty years since that one. I think the new voters who have turned 18 since then, probably five million of them, deserve their say.
    meow
    31st Jan 2016
    3:11pm
    who trusts any of our politicians to be President? Not me
    Gee Whiz
    1st Feb 2016
    2:48pm
    This story once again highlights what politicians want and not what the public wants. These sorts of stories carries the connotation that a republic is a foregone conclusion and people should get used to politicians having the last word.

    It would be far more productive if "your life choices" ran a poll for, for and against a republic.
    sanity
    1st Feb 2016
    3:34pm
    Worth stating again - surely we have many more important matters that desperately demand the attention of the PM and his Cabinet. How convenient for the red herring to be raised in conjunction with Australia Day (which it's not in reality). Gets the SJW's (Social Justice Warriors) back on the job.
    It would be more progressive if YLC were to conduct a poll on the top 10 list of urgent needs of the country. I'll start with some:-
    1. Present a plan to re-balance our finances.
    2. Present a plan to invigorate our social services benefit recipients into the workforce. Even PT employment with SS benefits would be helpful to get some of these people "work-ready".
    3. Present a plan that sees our immigrant population assimilate into the country. Must speak English, must swear in support of our constitution in ALL of its facets.
    4. Present a plan to nationalise the law and order requirements and empower the various bodies with sufficient power and support to ensure we achieve a result - nationally.
    5. Present a plan to eliminate waste within our health system and get a national plan to implement.
    6. Present a plan to reintroduce the basics into our education system and implement this nationally.
    7. Present a plan to eliminate waste and over-servicing within our political arena. Local Government to be eliminated completely. State Governments obligations to service local communities and the objectives of the points in step 1-6.

    Now there's a debating start. Good luck to all and lets just get the Westminster system working well.
    Anonymous
    1st Feb 2016
    6:27pm
    Everyone who says there are more important things to do, is actually saying "No", but doesn't have any rational reasons.

    You want those issues addressed? Start threads on them, but take your conservative opposition way from here unless you actually want to discuss the issue.

    1st Feb 2016
    6:35pm
    Righto, let's address a few of the repeated misunderstandings on this matter, hopefully forever.

    Right now, the Prime Minister selects a Governor General, then asks the Queen if it's OK. She never say "No", no matter how stupid the choice. But she could.

    We could have a republic where the Prime Minister selects a Governor General, then asks the parliament if it's OK. Maybe needing 70% approval from both houses. It would eliminate real duds.

    We could even keep the name Governor General.

    We could stay in the Commonwealth, and hence the Commonwealth Games. (Half the Commonwealth countries are republics.) The most recent CHOGM was in Malta, a republic.

    That's the minimalist model. Can anyone rationally fault it?
    jeffr
    1st Feb 2016
    7:49pm
    Yes Barak....I will, How many Prime Ministers have told LIES, ie Abbott, Gillard in the last few years.How many ministers have also told LIES? ...quite a few. How many ministers take advantage of every lurk and perk they can get? Until we can TRUST our government to be honest and not GREEDY how can we trust them to run a republic without taking advantage of the average Australian.
    Anonymous
    1st Feb 2016
    8:05pm
    jeffr - I don't understand your objection.

    Yes, pollies are dishonest, but the minimalist model I described is so similar to the present process, I can't see the problem. Any impact of bad pollie behaviour would be equally significant in either the new model or in what happens now.
    saltbushbill
    2nd Feb 2016
    1:31pm
    When the Republic issue rears its head you can be sure the "elite"use it as a distraction.Divide and conquer.
    Anonymous
    2nd Feb 2016
    6:05pm
    Huh?

    You need to explain that.

    Perhaps you can start with telling us who you think the "elite" is.
    Hawkeye
    2nd Feb 2016
    11:32pm
    For chrissake Barak, HE DOES NOT NEED TO EXPLAIN IT.
    It's quite self-explanatory to anyone prepared to think with an open mind.

    Please note - this reply is free from personal abuse.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles