Newspoll has their history of opinion polling on a republic online. The question that is asked is; Are you personally in favour or against Australia being a republic?. Graph inside.

This is built from the Newspoll/Australia data; Republican Poll 23/01/2006 . I took approximately one data point each year, around the middle of the year, so that the large amount of polling done in the late 90s doesn't skew the visual representation of the graph.

Unfortunately there was no data between 91 and 87, which may make the drop in support for those Against seem more dramatic than it really is.

Even though support for has wavered around the 50% line, hovering slightly above and below; since the 1994 those against have been fairly consistently only approximately 35% of respondents.

The Keating Government's advocacy of a republic certainly made the issue mainstream, and its constant location in the media since has definitely had an effect on how Australians think of, and relate to a republic.

Since 1996 when the predominantly monarchical and 'ain't broke, don't fix it' conservative Howard Government took power, support for and against a republic has been consistent.

For this the Australian Republican Movement needs to be congratulated. It is one of the longest lasting formal republican organisations in Australia. Too often in Australian history, organising republicans has been like herding cats.

Even though I disagree with the minimal republicanism of the ARM, and the Dutton/Horne principles for a Republic, it is likely they have an influence on these polls. Especially as they have soldiered on diligently after the defeat of the referendum in 1999.

This is from Newspoll on December 1999, unfortunately I cannot deep link to it, as it is a pdf in a javascript pop up, but it gives those polled a choice between a directly elected president, an appointed president and the continuation of a constitutional monarchy. The directly elected president led with 50% of respondents replying yes.

The question asked is:

Now I'd like you to consider three broad possibilities for Australia in regards to a republic. One possibility is to change to a republic with a President who is elected by the people. A second possibility is to change to a republic with a president who is appointed by parliament. And a third possibility is to not change anything, keeping the queen and the Governor-General in their current roles. Which one of these possibilities would you yourself most prefer?

The results for this poll were:

• 50% - Elected President
• 32% - No Change
• 14% - Appointed President
• 4% - Uncommitted

A later poll had 30%+ of respondents saying they would vote no in the referendum as there was too much uncertainty over the republican model. This was a direct result of the ARM going against public sentiment for a directly elected President and compromising with the political elites for an appointed President.

Andrew Leigh listed in a recent speech three things opposing Australia becoming a republic, but the Newspoll data suggests that only two aspects of the republican debate need to be publicly taken care of.

One; a republic is not possible until people get to elect their President, and two, that the political elites in Canberra have to be convinced that an elected President is in their interest.

Politicians are easy to take care of, there are well determined mechanisms for influencing their votes and stands; lobbying and public opinion being two well known ones.

Getting republicans to agree on one Constitutional Model with an elected President so that there is a uniform and consistent front on the issue - which matches public opinion - is going to be much harder. Republicanism is rooted in the liberalist tradition, getting republicans to agree can be like herding cats .

Modern republicanism does not require an irritant cause or the rationalistic leap of a revolution - public opinion is already with us. It just becomes us to come up with a suitable model with a directly elected President that minimises tyranny and maximises liberty. In my opinion this inevitably leads to a constitutional model with a separate executive.

Democracy's morality is the expectation that the public will be directly involved in the selection of public officials and all that entails. This morality is important as it is where public institutions get their legitimacy from. The morality of democratism is very strong in Australian culture.

Not only are Australians a republican people but they are a democratic people too. That graph is from a 1998 Newspoll which asked those polled if they had to choose from the three models which would be their choice; direct election, parliamentary appointment after election within parliament and a council composed of judges and former governor-generals appointing the head of state. I am not surprised that the natural Australian instincts for democratism won out.

When democratism is chosen over appointment it is not only a desire to be involved in the process, it has ramifications on the legitimacy of the public office. Those that said they wanted to elect a President are also saying the legitimacy of the President's office is tied up in their approval. The civic component of this goes far beyond the dry choice of a constitutional model.

It is also a warning for future drafters of republican constitutions; ignore popular will and the public's desire for democratic morality then the cost will be the failure to establish republican government.

It is my firm opinion that any Australian republican model is going to have to incorporate a directly elected head of state. This raises separation of powers issues which it is up to republican constitutionalists to solve, and Australian republicans to communicate to the public, such that the public can satisfy their demand for a legitimate democratically moral system with the negative realities of executive and legislative power accounted for under limited government.

I only see two possible options.

One: If a parliamentary system is to be maintained with its inefficiencies in separation of powers, then a directly elected Governor-General has to represent the Bill of Rights directly and have as their popular mandate the requirement to protect those rights from executive and legislative intrusion. Veto would be the main technology to achieve this though some kind of formal mechanism to force legislation into judicial review would be beneficial as well.

Two: A presidential system where the executive becomes a separate office from parliament. In other words an executive in the style of the Washington system.

The second option is my preference.