http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Republic-would-upset-balance-of-power/2007/08/25/1187462569567.html

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson says turning Australia into a republic would shake up the nation's "fundamental balance of power" which had created one of the world's most stable countries.

Dr Nelson spoke at the opening of the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy annual conference in Sydney on Saturday, where he described himself as "not a royalist but I am a monarchist".

"We enjoy a stability which is the envy of many people throughout the rest of the world," Dr Nelson told the 60-strong crowd.

"The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom are amongst the most stable and tolerant nations throughout the world and they are, of course, constitutional monarchies."

Dr Nelson said much of the support for Australia to become a republic appeared to come from people who wanted "change for its own sake".

The shift would see the nation leave behind a system which had given Australia great stability, not through power wielded by the Queen or her Australian representative the Governor General.

"But instead it is the power they deny others," Dr Nelson said.

"If you transferred that across to a person who may be elected in some form or another, either by the public or a majority of the parliament, then the fundamental balance of power in our country will change.

"People will expect, quite understandably, a person who is the president perhaps under a republic to exercise power in the name of what is popular."

---

Qld to do audit of state-fed relations

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Qld-to-do-audit-of-statefed-relations/2007/09/04/1188783207706.html

The Queensland government will audit its agreements with the federal government, leading up to a constitutional convention in 2009.

Premier Peter Beattie announced the move in state parliament.

He said the audit would examine cross-border arrangements and identify inefficiencies.

A public awareness campaign would inform a debate on federalism, and a discussion paper would be commissioned.

http://news.smh.com.au/push-for-democratisation-of-gg-choice/20080125-1o30.html

Australia's next governor-general should be someone open to all sides of the republican debate, the Australian Republican Movement says.

The lobby group said the man due to leave the vice-regal job later this year - Major General Michael Jeffery - had declined to receive its representatives during his term in office.

The movement has called on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to consult widely before recommending an appointment to the Queen for her approval.

"During our next governor-general's term it is likely the Australian people will be asked to consider the question of having an Australian citizen as our head of state - instead of a foreign monarch," ARM chairman Major General Mike Keating said in a statement.

Maj Gen Keating said the replacement process was an opportunity for Mr Rudd to "democratise" the office of governor-general through a wider consultation process before the appointment.

"A more open process would be a logical interim measure before we make our ultimate transition to an Australian republic in the coming years," he said.

---

from crikey:

Gordon Pears writes: Re. "2020 summit: Talk for the sake of a talkfest" (yesterday, item 5). The 2020 Summit has the potential to create a fine blueprint for a future Australia. But then what? How can we move from vision to reality? No way: unless we have the right machinery to put it into effect. This will call for a political and constitutional structure designed to encourage thoughtful change rather than inhibit it. Neither Mr Rudd's initiative nor any comment on it that I have read so far makes any reference to this need. The Australian Constitution is a British Act of Parliament designed over 100 years ago mainly to unite six quarrelsome colonies into something resembling a nation. Well, the colonies haven't changed much but the environment within which they quarrel - socially, economically and globally - has changed beyond all recognition. The next federal election should be accompanied by a referendum to amend the Australian Constitution in a number of relevant ways. The minimum this should include would be to replace the present three year maximum parliamentary terms by fixed four year terms (which Mr Rudd already supports). Next, the separation of powers between Commonwealth and States should be re-written in 21st century language for 21st century conditions. Equally, the separation of powers between executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Commonwealth Government needs to be clarified. Finally, the Constitution should include a Bill of Rights. None of this will be easy to achieve, essentially because people with power will always resist change that reduces that power. Not all aspects of a mature and successful democracy can be written into a constitution. This includes much of the structure and behaviour of our political parties. Carmen Lawrence summed up one aspect of this beautifully: "The domination of the Parliament by a disciplined bipolar system means that the House of Representatives comes to be seen at worst as a theatre of meaningless ritual and at best as an institution under the foot of the Executive".

why not just make the gov general head of state? keepe everything the same

If it was just a matter of making the GG head of state I don't think anyone would bother. I think it is only worth the trouble if there are more substantial changes made.

At the 2020 summit, there was strong support for a bill of rights.

deepthought wrote on Apr 21^st, 2008, 1:20pm:


Oh you know... removal of the ancient system of monarchy for starters.

freediver wrote on Apr 21^st, 2008, 7:46pm:


Therefore unnecessary.

Had some guys at work here suggest some advantages of a monarchy.
They said we pay the queen money, pay for her tours and pay for all the GGs.
In essence, a republic would be cheaper.
In hindsight, I don't think that is a significant improvement.

However, it is a suggestion