How about OUR Republic?

Seven million broadsheets were distributed that presented the case of the republicans v monarchists in a simplistic style as if to replicate the ossified two-party culture.

This erroneous presentation harmed the several pro-republican groups, particularly those in favour of a direct election of the president. There was no need to present the issue as such. It was crude, simplistic and unfair. It demeaned the entire debate and influenced the media negatively because the media basically accepted the adversarial model.

In reality the monarchists ended up with less than 10 per cent of the vote. In other words, voters who voted against the model on offer solely because they wanted to maintain the monarchy, were estimated to be below 10 per cent.

This demonstrated that identifying this constituency, embodied by the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, as a powerful interest group in the referendum debate, was a serious mistake. Or, as many have claimed, it was perhaps a deliberate strategy to encourage failure.

For the above reasons one must question why, for example, the ARM continues to present the debate in such terms, even though they have opted for a choice of five types of head of state. Moreover, their presentation is still minimalist.

And something that also came out of the 2004 senate inquiry, and is favoured by the ALP as well, is that the first proposed plebiscite should ask simply if the voters want a republic or stay with the British monarchy. This is inviting rejection even though, if approved by ordinary national majority, a second separate plebiscite would provide options for a head of state.

Opinion polls have clearly indicated for many years now that voters prefer a republic with a directly elected symbolic president. A model or model(s), and the next referendum question, should be built around that basic preference.

The two plebiscites could easily be combined into one and the outcome used for the referendum question. Doing it separately opens the prospect of a preference for an indirectly elected president and failure of the referendum.

Neither the ALP nor the ARM seems to have a clear idea of the process towards major constitutional change that will be required subsequently. There is no acceptance of a strategic process whereby constitutional issues are put before the public for discussion and implementation so as to modernise the state and embark on a democratic republic. They are still in the piecemeal tinkering mode of the last 106 years, which has often proved to be inadequate when it comes to modernising the Australian Constitution.

This book questions the political and electoral systems of Australia, the archaic and costly structure of federation, certain dysfunctional aspects of the Westminster system, and the constitution itself.

It advocates change, not within the system but of the system. It suggests that the head of state issue is merely a prelude, a first step to what is to follow. What is to follow must surely be the business of the sovereign citizens of Australia.

At every step there should be multi-question options, presented in plebiscites for discussion and consultation. This should be followed by referendum questions based on preferences expressed in the relevant plebiscites by the voters. The end result will be a republic that is owned by the citizens: OUR republic!