The "Popular Appointment" page is a detailed discussion of applying the Missouri Plan as a way to progress toward a republic.
The FitzSimons Letter is a 2016 letter to the Chair of the Australian Republic Movement, explaining what has to be done to get the republic back on the agenda.
The Turnbull speech comments is a Word file criticising, perhaps ridiculing, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's innovation-free speech to the ARM at a dinner in December 2016 which celebrated 25 years of failure to achieve a republic.
Below is some background...
The republic debate has been distorted by the fallacy that there are only two options for selecting a
president:
- parliament appoints, or
- the people elect.
The referendum proposal was for a parliamentary appointment and in November 1999, it was turned down by the
voters, 55% to 45%. The other option, the people electing the president, is preferred by the majority of those
voters who support going to a republic which was about 70% in those days.
The situation is that the supporters of these two options each regard the other as extreme - and
so the
monarchy stays. But logically there are two further options:
- parliament elects, or
- people appoint.
Obvious in a way. Parliament elects is roughly what Germany and Italy do for their figurehead presidents. I was
more interested in the people appointing. That's appointing, not electing.
In February 1998, a few friends chipped in $50 each and so I sat at the fax machine through the small hours sending each delegate to the republic convention in Canberra a two-page outline of "Popular Appointment." It was ignored - which sort of proves that the delegates had their ideas already fixed. It indicated to me and my sponsors that this was a top-down political action and that the conference was essentially orchestrated. About six recipients replied later and a couple of the replies were personal, i.e., not merely "Thank you for your interest."
On August 6, 1999, the Australian Financial Review published a version of it (Re/view liftout p.8). It was quite a handsome double-page spread. There was almost no feedback but at least the idea was in the public domain. The Fin Review gave me another nice double page spread on the eve of the November 1999 republic referendum to argue against the referendum proposal. I got a little feedback from that one.
The referendum failed and the debate stuttered on. A few years later the West Australian published an article in which the chairman of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy and former WA Liberal Party leader, Bill Hassel, set out conditions for a safe transition to a republic. He thought his conditions would be impossible to meet but I replied in a brief article "Four slow, sure and safe steps to a republic" showing that "Popular Appointment" meets them all (West Australian 29.12.03 p.17). Perth is a pretty small place and I heard that Hassel was encouraged to respond - but he never did.
In 2004 the Senate held an inquiry into the republic. I made a submission, one of over 700 written submissions. I thought it would be buried in the heap but to my surprise they read it and then they asked me to present it in person to the Senate committee. Senator Stott-Despoja thought it wonderful in its simplicity. Senator Bolkus couldn't say anything good about it.
The verbatim discussion is on the web (search for the 2004 Senate inquiry). So is the Committee's report, which ignored my suggestion.