The November referendum: Should Australia become a republic?

Echo Issue Outline (... appearing in 1999 print editions 32 and 33)

TITLE: The November referendum: Should Australia become a republic?

Copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.

Issue outline by J M McInerney

On November 6, 1999, all Australian voters will be able to help determine whether their country is to become a republic or remain a constitutional monarchy.
People will be asked whether they want passed into law 'An Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the Members of the Commonwealth Parliament'.
Currently the number of people supporting the change to this form of republic appears to be about equal to the number of people opposing it.

Background

Australia's current form of government and the change proposed.
A constitution is a binding document describing a country's form of government.
Australia is currently a constitutional monarchy, with the Queen technically our Head of State. As such the monarch theoretically has the power to veto or block legislation, dissolve a deadlocked parliament and is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
These powers are, in fact, vested in the governor-general. In 1931, Australia decided to give governors-general vice-regal status, effectively making them heads of State instead of agents of the British Government.
The only power currently uniquely exercised by the monarch is the appointment of a governor-general. This is done on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Many of the duties of the governor-general as head of State are ceremonial or symbolic. For example, the governor-general opens federal parliament. The more substantial powers our constitution gives a governor-general, for example as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, have rarely or never been exercised.
The governor-general also has a number of `reserve powers' which exist largely as a matter of potential. There has been an occasion when one of these reserve powers was exercised. (In 1975, the then governor-general, Sir John Kerr, dismissed an elected Prime Minister and his government and required that an election be held.)
If we become a republic, Australia would cease to have any formal connection with the monarchy. Our head of State would be titled president. (This was agreed upon by the Constitutional Convention.)
It is not generally proposed that any Australian president would have the type of power given to the president of the United States, who is both head of State and the head of Government.
Australia would retain a Prime Minister as the head of Government, while any president we had would be only head of State, with functions and powers similar to our current governor-general.

How an Australian president would be appointed and, if necessary, dismissed
Nominations for president will be called for. There is room for direct, public input in this nomination procedure, however, exactly how it would work has yet to be determined.
The Prime Minister would select one candidate. This selection would then have to be seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. After this the nomination would have to be supported by a two-third majority of the parliament. The two-thirds majority is meant to ensure that no president would be a party-political appointment, but would instead have the support of all major parties.
Under normal circumstances the president would be expected to retain this position for five years.
The Prime Minister would have the power to dismiss the President. To do this the Prime Minister would need to issue a written statement of dismissal. The grounds for dismissal would not have to be specified.
The Prime Minister's action would have to be supported by the House of representatives within 30 days, unless an election were called.
Currently the Queen is able to dismiss a governor-general on the advice of the Prime Minister, though doubt has been expressed as to whether she would ever do so.

The immediate history of the republic debate in Australia
Australia's Constitutional Convention ran for the first two weeks of February, 1998. It passed two major resolutions.
* The first was that Australia should become a republic.
* The second dealt with how we would select the president of our new republic.
The question of whether an Australian president should be directly elected became a major issue at the Convention.
Ultimately, the selection process that received most support within the Convention was for a president ratified by a two-thirds majority of parliament. This was referred to as the `bipartisan model' as it would require both major political parties (or bipartisan support) for a nominee to secure the backing of two-thirds of parliament.
This model has been criticised both by monarchists who wish to see no president at all and by some republicans who believe an Australian president should be elected by the people.
The model which finally succeeded was essentially that proposed by the Australian Republican Movement(ARM). This group had long endorsed a model in which ratification of the president was made by parliament. The manner in which they would have had the president nominated has varied. Among those who spoke for ARM are its leader, Malcolm Turnbull and former NSW premier, Neville Wran.
Support for a directly elected president came from a loose coalition of people including Paul Tully, an Ipswich city councillor, Ted Mack and Phil Cleary, former Independents in federal parliament.
Support for the monarchy and thus opposition to any form of republic came from a range of people including Federal Employment Services Minister, Tony Abbott, and groups such as Australians for Constitutional Monarchy led by Kerry Jones.
As the referendum approaches, those urging a no vote remain an unlikely amalgam of pro-monarchists and radical republicans favouring the direct election of a president.
Those urging a yes vote are primarily concerned to see an Australian head of state and less concerned about the manner of his or her appointment.

A note on referenda
In a referendum, a major issue is put to the Australian people. All those listed on the Australian electoral rolls, that is, virtually all those over 18 are required to vote. Those certified insane and prison inmates do not have the right to vote. The extremely elderly or unwell and Australian citizens living abroad may place a postal vote.
For a referendum to be passed, it needs majority support across the whole Australian electorate. That is, more than half of all Australian voters need to support it. It also needs to be carried in a majority of States.
These requirements have made it very difficult for referendums to return a yes vote. More than 40 referenda have been held in Australia and only eight have gained both an absolute majority and support from a majority of states.

Internet information section.

A good place to start is with the home page of The Constitution Centenary Foundation. This can be found at http://www.centenary.org.au/
A subsection of this site deals with the 1999 republic referendum. It gives clear, detailed information on the voting procedures to be followed in the referendum. It also outlines what the Constitutional Convention proposed on the republic issue and contrasts this with the relevant aspects of the current constitution.
This subsection can be found at http://www.centenary.org.au/voting/index.html
The Constitution Centenary Foundation is an organisation created to foster understanding and informed debate on Constitutional reform. It produces a large number of fact sheets on specific sections of the Constitution and on questions about the document.

A very useful site dealing with the republic debate has been established by The Australian.
It can be found at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/extras/001/repndx.htm
This is a rich and wide-ranging site. It has links through to summaries of the views of a number of key participants in the debate, including Tony Abbott, a key monarchist and opponent of a republic.
It also provides links to the home pages of The Australian Republican Movement and the Monarchist League.
Of particular interest is its link to a series of essays on republicanism compiled by the Senate.

The Age also has a good treatment of the Constitutional Convention. The home page for this site is http://www.theage.com.au/republic98/index.html
The Age also has a quite comprehensive collection of its articles on the republic and the November referendum in its Issues 99/Special Report section. This can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/special/republic/index.html

Another very helpful source is the ABC's Constitutional Convention site.
The home page for this site can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/concon/
It includes clear, easily digested information on the Australian Constitution, the republic debate and the Constitutional Convention.

An excellent site has been established by S. Souter of Sydney University's Education Faculty.
It is titled, The Australian Republic Issue - A Guide
It is one of the most comprehensive sites dealing with this topic. A descriptive listing of its links runs for over 20 pages. It includes a great deal of information on the Constitutional Convention but also links through to many other useful sites.
It can be found at http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/republic.html

Also of interest is the web site of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
This details the referendum which is to be put to the Australian electorate in November, 1999.
It considers both the republic and the preamble questions which are to be put. It can be found at http://www.dpmc.gov.au/referendum/index.htm

The Australian Republican Movement has a very good site. This can be found at http://www.republic.org.au/home.html
Though partisan, in that its focus is the views and organisation of the Australian Republican Movement, it has links to much relevant and useful information, including the Australian Constitution and the political party policy statements of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Australian Democrats on the question of an Australian republic.

The ACT branch of the Australian Republican Movement has an excellent home page of its own. This can be found at http://www.act.republic.org.au/ncr/index.htm
This includes the full texts of a number of pro-republic speeches given during the National Convention of Republicans held in Canberra on February 6-7, 1999 - the anniversary of the 1998 Constitutional Convention.
A number of these speeches reward close attention.
In particular, the speech of Gatjil Djekurra , Chairman of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, outlines the position of many Aboriginal Australians on the issue. This can be found at http://www.act.republic.org.au/ncr/ad-djerrkura.htm
Another worth studying is a speech given by John Uhr, Reader in Public Policy at the Australian National University and author of Deliberative Democracy in Australia (Cambridge University Press 1998).
John Uhr's address is a detailed and careful response to the arguments for a directly elected president. It can be found at http://www.act.republic.org.au/ncr/ad-uhr.htm

Another interesting but more specialised pro-republic site is that of Women for an Australian Republic
http://www.womenrep.dynamite.com.au/
This site gives a number of arguments in favour of a republic, including suggesting that the proposed form of election for a president is one which better serves women.
It also has a regularly maintained News Update section.

Another more specialised group supporting a republic is Young Australians for a Republic (YAR).
YAR is a broad-based alliance of young Australians promoting an Australian Republic with an Australian as Head of State.
YAR's home page can be found at http://home.vicnet.net.au/~yesyouth/
The articles section of this site includes articles, press releases and letters to the editor all supporting a republic.

The opposing point of view is put by Australians for Constitutional Monarchy - No Republic (ACM) The official ACM home page can be found at http://www.norepublic.com.au/
In its outline of the referendum it gives a general argument against the desirability of constitutional change. On another section of its site it gives a detailed criticism of the republican proposal.

The Australian Monarchist League is another group opposing an Australian republic. The League's home page can be found at http://www.monarchist.org.au/
In addition to arguments against the republic, the site includes detailed information on the 1984 Referendum Act.

Another anti-republic site is Australian Republic Unplugged.
The site's home page can be found at http://www.statusquo.org/index_frame.html
This is an interesting and easily negotiated site which gives a lot of anti-republic information. In particular it has a detailed criticism of Paul Keating's original pro-republic argument. This can be accessed by clicking the Republic Issue button in the left-hand frame of the home page.

Also of interest is the Real Republic home page. The title Real Republic, was first used by Tim Costello and Moira Rayner during their candidacy for the Constitutional Convention. The title has since been taken over by Phil Cleary, Ted Mack and Clem Jones as part of their opposition to the current republic proposal and their call for a directly elected president.
The site is said to have been set up on behalf of Clem Jones, Ted Mack and Phil Cleary .
At the moment it contains an edited copy of Peter Reith's (Federal Minister for Workplace Relations) recent speech supporting a directly elected president and urging a no vote at the referendum. This makes interesting reading. It can be found at http://realrepublic.homepage.com/

Arguments against Australia becoming a republic as proposed in the November referendum
There are two distinct sets of argument offered against Australia becoming a republic in the manner proposed in the November referendum.
No vote: constitutional monarchists
The first opposition comes from those who want to retain the status quo and keep Australia a constitutional monarchy, with the Queen and the Governor-General as our head of state.
The central argument offered by those who want no change to Australia's current system of government is that it has served us well for a hundred years and thus there is no reason to alter it.
This is often referred to as the 'if-it-ain't-broke, don't fix it' position.
Those who adopt this position tend to stress the extent of the changes to be made under the referendum proposal and the possible dangers associated with such changes.
This point has been made by Ron Boswell, the National Party Senate Leader. (The National Party is supporting the no change position.)
Mr Boswell has argued, 'A problem of the republican model is that it tears out chunks of the Constitution and inserts not just a few words here and there, but whole pages.'
Mr Boswell has further argued, 'There is no such thing as a minimalist republican position because it involves wholesale rejigging of all the levers and cranks of the existing Constitution.'
According to this line of argument, the Constitution, as it currently stands, is unlikely to be improved upon. Those with this view tend to argue that the men who wrote Australia's constitution considered a number of other options, including an elected governor-general, and decided that a Crown-appointee was the best guarantee of impartiality.
Those who support the role of governor-general in its current form, and, by extension, the place of the Monarchy in Australia's constitution, stress the importance of having a head-of-state who is above the political process and unable to be influenced by those within it.
This position has been summarised by Emeritus Professor David Flint, convener of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy.
Professor Flint has stated, '... the Crown [is] the only institution which [can] ensure an impartial, non-political umpire.'
Those who make this point appear to mean that where there is a political deadlock, as arguably occurred in Australia in 1975, the Governor-General needs to be independent and above the political process in order to resolve it.
The same point has been made by Kerry Jones, executive director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy.
Ms Jones has claimed, '... constitutional monarchies ... offer leadership above politics, and, through the Crown, they offer checks and balances on the government of the day.'
It has been suggested that the means of appointing the President proposed in the republic model to be voted on in November may make the President dependent on political deals.
It has further been claimed that the power to be given to the Prime Minister to dismiss a president makes the president dependent on the Prime Minister for continuing in office.
These points have been made by Professor Flint.
Firstly Professor Flint suggests that 'The single-candidate "election" entrenches "behind-the-doors" secret deals and trade-offs."
Professor Flint then argues that the proposed means of dismissing a president undermines the independence of the office even more. He supports the view that 'a president must not hold office at the whim of a prime minister. Otherwise you remove the checks and balances on the politicians.'
On the question of having an Australian as a head of state, it is firstly argued that though the Queen may be British, it is now a well-established convention that the Governor-General be Australian.
Professor Flint sums this position be saying, '... we already have an Australian head of state'.
Further it has been argued that the fact that Elizabeth II spends much of the year in London does not appear to concern those other nations which claim her as their Queen.
Professor Flint claims that this is `a small point which does not worry Canada, a richer, more powerful NATO power that sits at the world's top table - the G7.'
Professor Flint concludes, 'Nor should it concern us.'
In addition, it has been argued that many of our most important traditions and structures are of British origin. Those who make this argument point to our legal system, form of government, language and much of our culture.
From this perspective, it is claimed, it is appropriate that we remain a constitutional monarchy as a mark of our links with a valued past.
Supporters of Australia's constitutional monarchy also note that those who have come as migrants to Australia from countries with other styles of government and cultural traditions, presumably chose to accept Australia's form of government.
This position has been put by Kerry Jones.
Ms Jones has argued, 'Australia is regarded as one of the best systems of government in the world - people come from other countries because they want to live under this system.'
There also remains, among some monarchists, a continuing regard for the person of the Monarch.
This point has been made by Professor Flint, with reference to the present Queen.
Professor Flint has claimed, 'She has performed her duties impeccably, setting the highest standards of propriety and impartiality for her governors.'
A similar argument has been put on behalf of the Queen's heir, Prince Charles.
Frank Devine, writing in The Australian, has claimed, 'Charles ... is a punctilious and affectionate father. He tries to be modern, and can command a warship and fly planes. On early evidence, ARM presidents will have less stature than Charles ...'
No vote: radical republicans
The other main opposition to the republic model to be voted on in November comes from those for whom it does not go far enough. These are generally more radical republicans who want a directly elected president.
According to those who hold this view, the 'republic' to be voted on in November is largely cosmetic, involving little more than changing the title of Governor-General to President.
Those who object to what they refer to as a 'minimalist republic' claim that the position of president should be something all Australians can aspire to and that all Australians should be able to help determine, through their vote, who the President will be.
Those who hold these views claim that the parliamentary appointment model to be voted on in November was produced by political and social 'elites' and ensures that only one of their number is likely to become president.
This point has been made by former independent member of Parliament, Phil Cleary, who was also an elected independent candidate at the Constitutional Convention. Mr Cleary is now part of a group, the Real Republic, which is campaigning for a no vote at the November referendum.
Mr Cleary has said, 'The ARM model, with its cosy appointment of a president by a two-thirds majority of John Howard's Parliament, would, if successful, bury the aspirations of the people and bury the republic.'
A similar point has been made by feminist lawyer, Jocelyyne Scutt, who has claimed, 'If you are going to have a president who is a mirror image of those who are there already, there's no point in having one.'
What many who want a direct election of the President seem to hope for is a president who will speak on behalf of people whom, it is claimed, are currently ignored by our political system.
This point has also been made by Jocelynne Scutt.
Ms Scutt has argued that a president should think differently and bring fresh perspectives to the questions of the day. In particular, she has claimed, a president should be able to speak on behalf of those whom, she maintains, are marginalised within the current system.
Ms Scutt argues, 'Can you honestly see a woman, or an indigenous person, elected by Parliament? The answer is no.'
Phil Cleary has made a similar point, arguing, 'I won't give up my right to elect a president who just might speak the language of the people.'
With regard to fears that a popularly elected president could become too powerful and destablise our system of government, Mr Cleary has suggested that the President's powers could be codified to ensure that this did not happen.
Also, radical republicans share the concern of constitutional monarchists that the proposed new model, which allows the Prime Minister to dismiss the President, gives the Prime Minister too much power.
Those who oppose the current republic model because it does not allow for a directly elected president also argue that if the present model is accepted it will put an end to any further constitutional reform for perhaps a generation.
According to this line of argument, if a minimalist republic succeeds at the referendum this will not be a first step toward an elected president, instead, it is claimed, it will take the impetus out of the demand for reform.
This point has been made by Phil Cleary. Mr Cleary has claimed, 'No one can seriously believe that the major parties will campaign for further constitutional reform once they have fought off the people's challenge and entrenched their power.'
Instead, Mr Cleary and other believe, that if the current republican model is defeated, there will be irresistible popular demand for a more radical reform.
Mr Cleary has claimed, 'Ironically, it's only by defeating this phoney republic that we'll have any chance of ... constitutional reform ...'
On the question of further constitutional reform, Ted Mack, another former independent member of Palriament, elected delegate to the Constitutional Convention and member of the Real Republic, has argued that it is better to wait until Australia can achieve wholesale reform than to accept a minimalist change in time for a supposed deadline in 2001.
Mr Mack suggests Australia is not well governed, that our voting system has ensured that we regularly have minority governments, and that the `obsolete features of our Constitution create ... inefficiency in almost all areas of public policy, such as education, health, transport, taxation, commerce, the environment.'
From this perspective not just an elected president, but other fundamental constitutional reform is necessary.

Arguments in favour of Australia becoming a republic as proposed in the November referendum
Those who support Australia becoming a republic with a president appointed by a two-third majority of Parliament normally begin by stressing the importance of Australia having an Australian head of state.
This argument has been put by Frank McGuire, convenor of the Australian Republican Movement.
Mr McGuire has stated, 'Australians want a prominent, contemporary Australian to play a national unifying role as our head of state.'
For those with this view it is not enough that the Governor-General is now always an Australian. They appear to believe that the Governor-General's significance is diminished because his appointment, though recommended by the Prime Minister, has to be approved by the Queen.
According to this line of argument, the Governor-General has, at least symbolically, a subsidiary role, being seen as a stand-in for the Monarch.
There are numerous objections to the centrality of Monarchy in Australia's constitutional arrangements.
One of these objections is based on a rejection of hereditary positions.
From this point of view, there is nothing intrinsically superior about the British royal family which requires that their descendants, and only their descendants, can be Australia's head of state.
This arrangement is objected to as unfair or inegalitarian.
This position has been summed up by Frank McGuire.
Mr McGuire has said, 'In November we will have the historic opportunity to vote for an Australian to become our head of state - a position based on merit and performance, not by birthright as the British Monarch.'
There are also those who challenge the calibre of person who assumes the Crown by birthright.
According to this line of argument, when someone inherits a position rather than earns it, he or she may not be suited to the role.
This point has been made by James Murray, The Australian's religious affairs editor.
James Murray has argued, 'While one must be saddened by marriage failure, the complicit adultery of the heir to the throne hardly encourages any faith in ... [his] personal integrity.'
James Murray has also argued that the institution of Monarchy is not sanctioned by the Bible.
Murray notes that in the Old Testament there is no tradition of dynastic succession. While in the New Testament, when Pontius Pilot asks Jesus if he is a king, Jesus replies that his 'kingdom is not of this world'.
Murray concludes from this, 'It is difficult to justify Christian support for a monarchy.'
Another objection to Australia's current relationship with the Crown is that it suggests dependence upon Britain.
From this point of view it is argued that if Australia is to be a fully independent nation it needs to have its own, unique head of state, not one shared with the United Kingdom and a number of other Commonwealth countries.
This point has been made by Rachel Buchanan, a staff writer for The Age.
Ms Buchanan apparently contacted Buckingham Palace and claims to have been told that Queen Elizabeth II is head of state for 'Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, Fiji ... the Bahamas ... Granada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Piga and Bardua, St Christopher and the Nevis.'
The official who gave Ms Buchanan this list was not, she claimed, certain whether Fiji should still be on it.
The implication of Ms Buchanan's comments appears to be no country can claim independent status when its head of state divides her attention among some twenty other nations.
It has further been suggested that, on a practical level, only an entirely Australian head of state can adequately represent Australia's interests abroad.
Relatedly, it has been claimed, that if Australia wishes to be seen as a fully independent nation by our trading partners within our own region then we need to remove the impression that we are in any measure a British satellite.
Further, it has been argued that as the racial and cultural composition of Australia's population has changed, especially since World War II, there are many Australians who have no association with the United Kingdom.
For these people, it has been claimed, Australia's relationship with the British Monarchy is a particular irrelevance.
This point has been made by Robert Manne, associate professor of politics at Latrobe University.
Robert Manne has noted, 'After the 1960s, monarchial sentiment was slowly undermined by Australia's substantial non-British migration program.'
It has further been argued that support for the monarchy is in large measure a generational phenomenon and that most younger Australians do not see any relevance in retaining a connection with the British Crown.
There are also Australians for whom their country's continuing constitutional link with the British Monarchy has negative connotations.
Many Aboriginal Australians see themselves as having been dispossessed by British imperialism.
Most, it appears, would prefer that the Australian constitution was reformed to better acknowledge their place in this nation. Removing the connection with the British Crown is generally seen as part of this process.
It has also been noted that Britain no longer retains the close association with Australia it once did.
According to this line of argument once Britain joined the Common Market and then the European Union it cast its lot with Europe and effectively denied any special relationship between Britain and other Commonwealth countries, including Australia.
It has also been noted that Britain no longer plays a strategic role in Australia's part of the world and that our defence treaties are with other nations.
These points have been made by Robert Manne, who has observed, 'In the 1960s Britain prepared to enter the European Common Market and to withdraw its armed forces from "east of Suez". To Australian British loyalists these were body blows.'
Those who stress these developments appear to be suggesting that becoming a republic does no more than acknowledge the reality of Australia's current degree of connection with Britain.
There are also those who argue that Britons, as a whole, have never held Australians in high regard, generally seeing them as crude colonials.
Those who adopt this view believe that the only proper response to what they see as British contempt is to assert our independence of Britain.
Many supporters of the November referendum see a yes vote as an important marker of Australia's national maturity and confidence in its future.
This position has been put by Kim Beazley, the leader of the Australian Labor Party.
Mr Beazley has argued that a yes vote at the referendum 'would rule a line under all our achievements this century and build a real sense of maturity among us.'
Those who adopt this position argue that although the actual changes being made to Australia's constitution may appear small to some, they have significant symbolic power.
Tim Costello, minister of Collins Street Baptist Church, has stressed the importance of national symbols.
Tim Costello has argued, ' Symbols ... can release us for a new event ... That's why ... I would like to see the model accepted at the referendum this year. I am confident that with this symbolic threshold crossed, we can focus afresh on reinvigorating our democracy.
Mr Beazley has further claimed, 'The Australian republic is not an indulgence, it is a vital reform that will allow us to face a new century ... with the cohesion and high aspiration essential to the survival of the Australian nation.'
Those who support the republic model being voted on in November further argue that if this opportunity to establish a republic is not taken it could be many years before republicans have a similar chance.
This point has been argued by Malcolm Turnbull of the Australian Republican Movement.
Mr Turnbull has suggested that, if there is a majority no vote in November, there is unlikely to be another referendum on the question for at least ten years.
Mr Turnbull has claimed, 'I'd say that unless you're planning to live to a hundred or you're very young, this is our only chance.'
A similar point has been made by Mark McKenna, author of The Captive Republic: A History of Republicanism in Australia.
Mr McKenna has claimed, 'It is contradictory to believe that more radical change to the Constitution will come from reaffirming the status quo.
The impetus for further change can come only from fostering a political environment receptive to constitutional change. There is only one way to do this. Vote yes in November.'
It has also been argued that the arrangements made at the 1998 Constitional Convention mean that a yes vote would specifically allow for further constitutional change.
This point has been made by Moira Rayner and Tim Costello, among others. Rayner and Costello took part in the 1998 Constitutional Convention on a Real Republic ticket.
They wanted significant constitutional reform, including, perhaps, a bill of rights.
At the Constitutional Convention they successfully moved an amendment which stated that if the yes vote is carried there will be a further Constitutional Convention within three to five years to consider additional constitutional reform.
From this point of view it has been argued that those for whom the current referendum proposal is too narrow should vote for it as a first step and then use the later Constitutional Convention as an opportunity to promote further reform.
On the specific question of whether the president should be directly elected, many supporters of the Parliamentary appointment model argue that a popularly elected president would inevitably become involved in the party political process as only the major parties were likely to be able to fund a nation-wide election campaign for a president.
On the other hand, they argue, because the bipartisan model calls for the support of two-thirds of Parliament before a presidential nominee can be confirmed in the position, this would require that only someone acceptable to all parties would be put forward.
According to this line of argument, the bipartisan model ensures the political neutrality of the president.
This point has been made by Malcolm Turnbull who has argued, 'Ultimately the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would have to agree on someone. So it would be yes on someone like Bill Dean. But no on a Bill Hayden. Maybe someone from law or academia or science.'
It has further been argued that a popularly elected President would have the same sort of democratic authority as the Prime Minister as both could claim to have the support of the Australian electorate.
It has been argued that this split authority at the head of government could cause deadlocks in the event of a significant disagreement between the Prime Minister and the President.
This point has been made by former Professor Greg Craven, a committee member of Conservatives for an Australian Head of State.
Professor Craven has argued, 'Were we to have both an elected prime minister and an elected president, the inevitable result would be that we would have not one, but two immensely powerful figures with a serious moral claim to constitutional supremacy.'
Finally, it has been argued, the fact that the proposed constitutional reform would give the Prime Minister the power to dismiss the President does not, it is claimed, tip the balance of power unduly in the Prime Minister's favour.
It has been noted that the Prime Minister currently has the power to dismiss the Governor-General, even though such a dismissal is subject to the approval of the Crown. It is also noted that the President would have the power to dismiss an elected Government and require an election to be called, as the Governor-General is presently able to do.
Those who support the suggested new arrangements tend to argue that they do no more than replicate the current balance of power between the Prime Minster and the head of state.

Further implications
The implications of this issue appear to depend on your perspective.
For those supporting the referendum it is an important opportunity to mark Australia's independence both at home and on the world stage.
For Constitutional Monarchists the proposed changes also seem to have significant symbolic value, perhaps threatening an established system of values which they regard highly.
However, for many radical republicans, the November referendum does little more than change the title of Governor-General to that of President.
The actual impact of a yes or a no vote will probably really only become apparent once the vote is cast.
It does seem likely that if the no vote carries the day that this will put at least a temporary end to further constitutional reform. On the other hand, if the yes vote takes both an overall majority and a majority of states, there is a mechanism in place to allow for further constitutional review.
For those concerned about issues such as the balance of power between Prime Minister and head of State, about the role of the Senate relative to the House of Representatives and about the possibility of an Australian bill of rights then further constitutional review is likely to appear attractive.
To date, the final version of a constitutional preamble, also to be voted on in November, has received relatively little attention. It is a less significant issue and, as such, may actually, as the Prime Minister has suggested, have a greater chance of securing popular approval.
Perhaps all that can be said with certainty is that the current debate represents a significant opportunity to increase popular understanding of Australia's system of government. Whatever the outcome in November, it would be unfortunate if we did not take advantage of this opportunity.

Sources
The Age
8/1/99 page 13 comment by Philip Cleary, 'The end of the republic'
12/1/99 page 11 comment by Frank McGuire, 'Cleary is wrong on the republic'
13/1/99 page 11 comment by Tim Costello, 'Why, with doubts, I back this republic'
16/1/99 page 8 (News Extra section) comment by Hugh MacKay, 'Apathy may save the Queen'
5/2/99 page 13 comment by Petro Georgiou, `Howard should let us have our say on how we want to elect a president'.
8/2/99 page 13 comment by Poppy King, 'Gen X. where are you?'
10/2/99 page 15 comment by Michaela Boland, 'Gen X and poppycock'
13/2/99 page 8 (news Extra section) comment by Hugh MacKay, 'Just any old model will not do'
17/2/99 page 13 comment by Terry MacDonald, 'The young, a republic and a lack of passion'
28/3/99 page 16 biography / profile / interview with Malcolm Turnbull by Doug Aiton, `The very model of a model republican'.
3/4/99 page 3 (News Extra section) interview with Tony Abbott by Michael Gordon, 'A fistful of faith'
27/7/99 page 17 comment by Moira Rayner, 'Reclaim our republic: vote yes - and more'
31/7/99 page 9 comment by Rachel Buchanan, 'Some lists you don't want to be part of'
4/8/99 page 17 comment by Philip Cleary, 'Say no to Rayner's republic model'
5/8/99 page 17 comment by Lindsay Tanner, 'Keeping our eyes on the prize'
8/8/99 page 15 (Agenda) interview with Kerry Jones by Corrie Perkin, 'If the Crown fits'
16/8/99 page 15 comment by Robert Manne, 'After the Queen, what?'
16/8/99 page 15 comment by Mark McKenna, 'Republicans be warned: no really means no'

The Australian
8/1/99 page 11 comment by Ron Boswell, 'Constitutional 'cage' should remain shut'
16/1/99 page 23 analysis by Sally Jackson, 'Rebels in the ranks'
26/1/99 page 13 comment by Kim Beazley, 'Debate must transcend party allegiances'
27/1/99 page 13 comment by Ted Mack, 'Undue haste could undermine a unique opportunity'
28/1/99 page 11 comment by Kerry Jones, 'It works: why mess with it?
28/1/99 page 11 comment by Paul Ham, 'Time to wipe the amused disdain off English faces'
5/2/99 page 17 comment by Greg Craven, 'No room for two at the top'
17/2/99 page 13 comment by Kanishka Jayasuriya, 'Beware the fascist roots of populism'
10/3/99 page 17 interview with Jocelynne Scutt by Sian Powell, 'Ms Republic'
30/7/99 page 13 comment by James Murray, 'Monarchy wasn't made in heaven'
1/8/99 page 32 comment by Andrew Robb, 'Symbol of way we are'
1/8/99 page 32 comment by Philip Cleary, 'Fending off power grab'
1/8/99 page 32 comment by Sir James Killen, "No place for politics'
1/8/99 page 32 comment by Tim Costello, 'Time to get a move on'
4/8/99 page 13 comment by Paul Kelly, 'Knee-jerk reactionaries beware'
4/8/99 page 13 comment by Greg Craven, 'Proposing a burnt toast to the republican debate'
55/8/99 page 11 comment by Frank Devine, 'Charles III? Beats the alternatives'
7/8/99 page 28 comment by Dennis Shanahan, 'Royal blessings to become a republic'
9/8/99 page 13 comment by Malcolm Fraser, 'Dismiss the people's president'

The Herald Sun
6/5/99 page 18 comment by Andrew Bolt, 'We have to stop king-hitting the Queen'
30/7/99 page 22 comment by David Flint, 'Our system is world's best'
30/7/99 page 23 comment by Rodney Hall, 'Heal the split, create a vision'