Nicola Roxon wants Republicans to decide on one model and then pursue that. Roxon is a minimalist who wants a Head of State appointed by the Prime Minister. She outlines a process to get to the point where Australians can choose if they want a Republic, and in what form it should be.

From the article;

Ms Roxon said a Labor Government would have a three-step process: a plebiscite to ask if people wanted a republic, a second plebiscite to decide the selection method [presumably for HoS] and then that model put to a referendum.

This is the best way to determine if the people want a republic, and then in what form. This minimises an elite group, or politicians hijacking the process, as was the case in 1999.

However, organizing Australian Republicans can be like herding cats , they have an independent streak. But it is better that way in my opinion, rather than a monolithic organization, Republicans are constantly arguing their beliefs and models in the market of popular opinion. This is a good thing.

South Sea Republic is collecting models , if anyone has a model they would like to have in this, grab an account and post an article describing the model.

cam

The internet supposedly has a permanent memory, but opinion polls on an Australian Republic are exceptionally difficult to find. The Pandora Archive has some from an archive of the Australian Republican Movement website . But they aren't specific on whether people want to vote for the Head of State or not, and how they want the Head of State to be elected. This is one problem with making the Republic popular, the other is what to do with the powers of the Executive.

So what do people want? Polling is the best means to determine this, and there isn't that much information at our fingertips to see what resonates with public opinion. Do people want to elect the Head of State (I am guessing yes)? What do they want the Head of State called? How do they want the Head of State to perform their duties?

This is the area where public opinion needs to be tapped for the wisest, and most popular outcome.

The other problem, which is probably better done by specialists, is what to do with the Executive. By specialists, I mean *not politicians*, their role in this would be too selfish.

We have several problems in our system. The Constitution is supposed to be a reflection of the will of the people and set the limits on legislative authority. Courtesy of Griffiths, Barton et al, we have crap constitution which has not been able to restrain federal excess, or legislative tyranny.

A Bill of Rights is a necessity in Australia to place legislative limits on the House and Senate.

The other is that we have poor separation of powers. Government is divided into three arms, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The legislative makes laws, the executive executes or enforces those laws and the judicial interprets the laws.

In Australian Parliament, the executive and legislative are both contained in the House. The Prime Minister can make a tyrannous law, fund the enforcement of that tyrannous law and then oversee its enforcement. Between a weak constitution and poor separation of powers, we have seen parliament abuse their authority blatantly and with devastating social effect in the past.

The question of what to do with the executive, especially if the people want to be actively involved in the process of selection and election of the Head of State are going to have to be answered.