Miss

The derivation of the high-sparked Republicanism debate stems from the opportunistic ideology concerning the ‘radical’ transformation of the Australian Constitution central to the failure of the first attempt at changing to a republican system in the referendum of 1999. Subsequently, the mood for change advocated occupancy of a central positioning among political representatives, symptomatic of the enduring and stable nature of the Australian parliamentary democracy based upon the confounded notion of the hereditary monarchy – receptive of the English Common Law. This paper will focus on inferences, such as the substitution of the entrenched sovereignty of parliaments with a presidential figure who may wager a personal claim to dominion. Such as the process of presidential selection, the proposed restrictions on presidential power, the assessment of popularly as opposed to a parliamentary-elected Presidential figure and the most appropriate model for a republican system of government (McConvill 2006, p. 4). Arguably, the diminutive focus on intrinsic proponents of the proposed constitutional modification and the intricate process involved in changing the existing legal system to a republic continues to reflect the tentative conjecture and political stance of the liberal government – and in particular the Prime Minister [and loyal monarchist] John Howard. This supposition was substantiated by Australian Prime Minister John Howard in answer to questioning by a British Journalist in 2006 stating “I don't believe Australia will become a republic while the Queen is on the throne. Beyond that, I don't know” (PM’s Comments Fuel Republic Debate, 2006).

The political system in Australia is that of a constitutional monarchy, based on the Westminster model. The Governor-General, who is appointed by the Queen and is the notional head of state, has various powers ranging from the reserve powers which can be used to dismiss a Prime Minister, extending to the mundane...