If you cut the queen out, that means you are a republic. The "minimalist" republican position is just that - the GG is the de facto head of state as the queen's rep. The minimalist model would just make that de jure.

I think the most common idea is a G-G (or president - whatever the name is) that is voted on by 2/3 majority of a joint sitting of parliament. And have a fixed term - 5 years most commonly.

That would mean it is someone supported by both sides.

But you do make a fair point - there are people who want to vote directly, or who want to actually create a more "presidential" system etc.

I don't think there has been much investigation into the model in recent times.

What killed the last referendum was that Howard arranged the Constitutional Convention that preceded the referendum so that there would be a maximising of the range of views - which would guarantee dissention within republican ranks as to the model proposed.

You must blame the republicans of the time as well for not getting their position settled beforehand.

Makes sense. I wonder if the "minimalist" approach mixed with the new flag, anthem and pointing to NZ as an example while maintaining the same constitution that we have had and has worked for a while will appease everyone

Thanks Azza, I was going to write something longish like that tonight but you saved me the trouble.

Haha! No worries

I think the key issue will be all republicans getting behind a single model. Because that is the first thing monarchists will point to (and fair enough to).

I think the process that the official republican groups throw around is to have 2 votes. One to choose the preferred republican model, and then the actual referendum putting the specific model up against the current arrangement.

Regarding the flag - I think the NZ experience will be important. If it gets shot down then I think that hurts our momentum. Whereas if the new flag gets up I think it will help to illustrate that it can be done.

I dunno though. As a teenager at the time of the failed republican referendum, I was incredulous as to how the republic didn't get up. The way it all fell apart has made me relatively cynical these days as to how willing the general public would be to change if it came up again. Particularly as our population continues to age, and therefore become more conservative over time.

I'm not sure what they're talking about now but some pollies were saying at the time (after the referendum failed) that we should have a plebiscite with a simple question like "Should we become a republic?" and then proceed from there pending the result.

I'm normally a fan of doing things incrementally but really it makes no sense to do it this way here. New flag & become a Republic at the same time.

Of course they would. Force everyone including people who don't care or are Monarchists to front up to a compulsory ballet to determine which would be the lesser of two evils in their eyes...

I suppose if the first question is "Should we become a Republic?" then we can go to there but still, would rather Republican groups give us in the "meh" pile something to support

Not really - I should have explained in more detail. The vote to choose the model would not be in a referendum format. Probably would be voluntary postal vote or similar. More just to establish among people who are interested as to what model they prefer.

Only the actual vote of a specific republic model vs the status quo would be in the form of a binding referendum vote.

I don't think its a bad idea - gets the republicans to agree on the format before actually arguing against the status quo.

Ah sweet thanks for clarifying.

Definitely. Can't help but think once Republicans sort out their stance it's all about making Australians use their imagination - part of history, change etc.

Use non-binding plebiscites to get public opinion for the "Should we have our own Australian head of state?" question and the choice of republican model. The referendum would then pit the preferred republican model against the current monarchist system as a simple Yes (Republic) or No (Monarchy) vote.

Yeah , theyre gonna have to change all the state flags too then








Edited by scott21: 3/2/2016 05:02:35 AM

I cant see why we have to change anything about the current hierarchy of governors and governor general. Simply make the governor general our head of state. All he or she is is a figurehead to cut ribbons at new train stations etc

Your suggestion is obviously the simplest, most cost effective way to transition to a republic without significantly changing how our government works. Instead of the PM bothering to ask the Crown on their opinion, he/she will just give them the job as they see fit. Yet i can just it being attacked by populists crying that it's just "Giving more power to Politicians" or some horseshite of similar note.

Quite a close referendum in the end. Given the expense I can't see another vote for a while, but that result makes me think they may change eventually if they can find the right design.

The important thing is that we get the chance to beat the Kiwis to something.

Good choice NZ.

A win for democracy

does anyone get sick of Ray martin mentioning flag change every australia day lol

You just know the progressive left were desperate for this to happen which makes it even funnier that it failed

the left hate plebisites and referendums...their only way of ramming through their agenda is through in party legislation

:lol:

=d>

=d>

Burn it.

Probably because Playford is a shithole.

Inb4 "ofc, Adelaide Utd are based there", etc.

But seriously, that is a slap in the face to vexillological design. Don't even know where to start.

Are there any good council flags? Particularly new or recently renamed councils will all be as shit as that one.

Bump, with a good example of a flag change based on good design principles:

Here's a free pdf link to the mentioned 14 page booklet, Good Flag Bad Flag. Probably been linked here before.