Greg Barns is the chairman of the Australian Republican Movement.

This year, Australians have celebrated the Centenary of Federation. In our own low-key and slightly ironical fashion, I think Australians have displayed a good deal of pride in the achievement of federation, and in our record of a hundred years of stable, democratic government - a record that very few countries can equal.

This celebration is also about a sense of continuum that we have had in this country since we were a far-flung prison on the other side of the globe. Firstly, we were a penal colony, then colonies obtained self-government, and then we came together as a Nation in 1901.

But this is where the continuum stops for the moment. As we celebrate, Australians also have to be aware of inconsistencies at the heart of our constitutional arrangements.

We are celebrating a democratic form of government, in which all political power is supposed to derive from the will of the people. Yet our head of state, the person at the apex of the constitutional structure, is not elected, not even indirectly, but holds her position by the accident of birth.

We are celebrating our nationhood, the birth of Australia as an independent member of the community of nations. Yet our head of state is not an Australian at all, but rules in virtue of her position in a country on the other side of the world.
We are celebrating Australia as a land of opportunity, a country where people's horizons are not limited by the artificial bonds of the Old World, where respect for the "fair go" is proverbial. Yet no Australian can hope to reach the top of the constitutional tree: for anyone who aspires to be our head of state, the only advice that can be offered, unhelpfully, is "Be born a member (preferably male) of the House of Windsor - and make sure you're not attracted to the Catholic church."

Finally, we are celebrating a successful constitution constructed with checks and balances to guarantee responsive and responsible government. But our key constitutional umpire, the Governor-General, the Queen's representative, is appointed in secret by the Prime Minister and his or her hands are tied by his or complete lack of any security of tenure. An umpire who can be replaced at a moment's notice by a nominee of one of the team captains will never be able to inspire confidence in his or her impartiality.

Some will say that this is merely the recitation of old arguments that republicans have been putting for ten years. It is certainly true that there is little that is new in these arguments - they were as true in 1901 as they are today - but the bottom line is that they bear repeating because when most Australians stop to think about the current position they agree that the time has come to end such an absurd situation.

But as well as being the centenary of Federation, and also the tenth anniversary of the launch of the Australian Republican Movement, this year also marks the three hundredth anniversary of the Act of Settlement of 1701, the Act that ultimately lays down who Australia's head of state shall be.

Now there is nothing wrong with an act of parliament being 300 years old: Magna Carta, for example, is much older than that. But the Act of Settlement is very much a product of its time; a product of circumstances that are completely alien to twenty-first century Australia. It settles the crown on the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, who was a granddaughter of King James the First, because she was the most senior Protestant heir available at the time.

One remarkable thing about the Act of Settlement is that it doesn't even mention the fact that in tracing that inheritance, sons are to take precedence over daughters. That was just taken for granted: it was so much part of the way things were done three hundred years ago that no-one bothered to spell it out. If a king has both sons and daughters, then of course the men - and their children as well - succeed before the women do, regardless of who is older. In the document that defines our head of state, inequality of the sexes is a fundamental part of the fabric. What message does that send to the women of Australia?

The same document is at odds with Australia's character as a secular society. Section 116 of our Constitution proudly lays down that the Commonwealth must not set up an established religion, and that 'no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.' But the Act of Settlement, of course, imposes the mother of all religious tests, disqualifying Roman Catholics, and even anyone marrying a Catholic, from the throne, and requiring the monarch to take communion in the established church of England.
So the Act of Settlement, whose anniversary has passed without public comment in Australia, enshrines religious intolerance at the heart of our Constitution. For a society that is as religiously and culturally diverse as ours, this is nothing less than a national embarrassment.

For all of these reasons alone, the republic still matters. Put simply, it matters because the alternative, a monarchy under King Charles III and the heirs of his body being Protestants, is simply unacceptable to the vast majority of Australians.
The monarchist cause in Australia is visibly moribund. When called upon to defend it in the 1999 referendum, the monarchists chickened out. We heard a great deal about the defects of the republican model, both real and imaginary. But the most fervent monarchists, the Kerry Joneses and the Tony Abbotts, were silent on the virtues of their own preferred model. They know as well as anyone, although they sometimes pretend otherwise, that Australia has changed since the 1950s.

They know that whilst many Australians have fond memories of their childhood when they stood and waved their Australian flag at the passing Queen of England, those same people the vast majority of those Australians see the experience as just that - a childhood memory and no more.

They also know that even in Britain the monarchy is now seen as no more than a symbolic institution. It represents something that is quintessentially British - a love of tradition, pomp and circumstance.

In fact, as soon as royalty even needs to be defended, as soon as its usefulness becomes a matter for debate, it is already in trouble. It depends on mystique, on a sort of fog of unquestioning respect. As Walter Bagehot said in 1872, 'Its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic.'

It is easy to see why the mystique of the monarchy has lost its resonance in Australia. That was bound to happen as Australia took its place as an independent nation, and a generation grew up that had never learnt to regard itself as 'British' or to regard Britain as 'home'. The British monarchy does have its emotional appeal, its traditions, and no doubt they include some valuable elements. But they are Britain's traditions, not ours.

As the British playwright David Hare commented, 'When it is said that our Royal Family is the envy of foreigners, I have always noticed that what foreigners particularly like is that it is ours and not theirs.'

Emotionally we in Australia have already ditched the monarchy. What we have yet to do is agree on exactly how to replace it.

As The Australian's Paul Kelly noted earlier this year, it is not enough for republicans to simply rely on attacking British privilege in mounting a case for constitutional change - we must develop a positive case for Australia. And this is not easy - the issue of Head of State is remote from the lives of most Australians.
So the contribution of the Australian Republican Movement in trying to forge agreement amongst those millions of Australians who want an Australian Head of State will require a lot of listening and a lot of advocacy. Explaining what's wrong with the monarchy is the easy part. But republicans can't rest on that; unlike our opponents, we have to be positive.The objective is to get the debate to the point where a majority of Australians will say 'Yes, that's what we want.' Not just an agreement to get rid of the monarchy, but a consensus behind a reformed constitutional structure that will serve Australia through the twenty-first century.

This is not going to happen overnight. Let there be no illusions; this is going to be a long process. And what the ARM must do is get out into the community and build on our existing support at the grass roots level. That's why, since the referendum defeat we've been travelling around Australia, talking to people, speaking to high school groups, local newspapers, and so on.

So far we've been to towns such as Bunbury in the West, the Huon Valley in Tasmania, Cairns in the North and the Riverina region of New South Wales, and suburban areas where we did badly in the 1999 referendum.

Recently I went to Leeton and Griffith in the Riverina area of New South Wales. It is in the federal electorate of Riverina and in the Referendum we only polled around 30 percent yes vote. I spent a couple of days in his area and spoke to over 150 Year 11 and 12 students. What impressed me about these students was that they essentially understood the argument for an Australian Head of State.

In fact, many of them could not understand why the Referendum failed. And one student - a Year 11 student from Wade High School in Griffith - summed up the argument for a republic like this; she said, "Being a republic will mean being a stronger and prouder Australia."

And the local accountant in Leeton who said to me that he wanted to start a branch of the ARM because this was just as important an issue for rural Australians as it was for anyone in the city because its about how we govern ourselves and that involves all of us.

And the Liberal Party stalwart in Bunbury who told me that she thought that it was about time she began questioning why supported the British monarchy when it had no relevance to her grand kids.

We had a good trip - front page of the Murrumbidgee Irrigator, lead story on the local WIN news, a big spread in the Griffith Area news and ABC radio from Wagga. But most of all, we put down roots in tough country and we know that with enthusiasm they will prosper.

This is not glamorous work; it's not high profile stuff. But it's fun and it's where the battle is going to be fought in the next few years. Our opponents love to describe us as an 'elitist' organisation - as if somehow there was something democratic or working-class about the House of Windsor. But its true that the ARM has not had the sort of mass membership that you expect, say, in a political party.

Considering we've only been going for ten years, I don't think that's all that surprising. Now it's starting to change: we're becoming an even more effective organisation with a real community base. I think of it as a bit like couch grass. You might not have much of it in your lawn to start with, but once it gets established, it spreads of its own accord, and before you know it it's taken over altogether.

And let me say a word here about the importance of education. It is absolutely clear that one of the main barriers to republican success in Australia is an appalling lack of knowledge about the basics of our constitution and our political system. The educational system has failed to teach our children the essential information that they need to understand how the constitution works and to assess proposals for changing it. And politicians, instead of trying to do something about that ignorance, have fed it and relied on it as a cloak to hide their own activities from proper scrutiny.

All the indications are that greater understanding of the constitution means greater willingness to consider change. You might remember the deliberative poll that was conducted immediately before the 1999 referendum: a representative sample of 350 Australians spent a weekend learning about the constitutional issues and listening to a wide range of participants in the debate. Before they started, 53 per cent said they intended to vote Yes to the republic. After a weekend of information and discussion, that figure had risen to 73 per cent.

Of course, the ARM doesn't have the luxury of being able to conduct these sort of deliberative polls throughout the electorate. That's why we see community education as a vital task. And over the next couple of years we will continue to use whatever opportunities arise to talk to our fellow Australians about how our current Constitution works and how change will work. We will also point out something that the monarchists patronizingly ignore - that Australians have been very good at adapting to new circumstances and the issue of the republic is no different in this regard.

Of course we don't claim to own the issue - we don't have any sort of exclusive franchise on the republic. It will take the work of many groups and many individuals to eventually bring about change. The important thing is that we work constructively, and don't spend our time fighting one another. The watchword for the ARM is Unity - Unity - Unity.

We start from this proposition. As Peter Costello said, 'the nation is republican in sentiment.' As republicans, whether direct election or ultra-minimalist, the bottom line is that we have to be able to work through our differences and unite in a common cause. As John Ramsden put it in his recent book about the British Conservative Party, we need 'to sacrifice some clarity to the belief that unity and diversity are more important.'

I had a successful meeting recently with direct electionist Phil Cleary, and I am convinced that the republican movement has to become a genuine rainbow coalition if we are to succeed. This will happen if we can put to one side political and ideological differences that make us suspicious of one another and prevent constructive dialogue on the issue that unites us - an Australian Head of State.

A passive majority in support of the republic, even if it's a large one, will not be enough. Even sympathetic politicians don't like to stick their necks out on an issue unless they can see that there is some payoff involved. In practice that means they have to be convinced that there is electoral mileage to be made from embracing the change, or that there will be an electoral penalty to be paid if they do not.

Change requires active support, especially if the minority opposing it is noisy and animated. I am quite sure that in the long run an Australian republic is inevitable. But the long run in politics can be very long.
One of the tasks for republicans is to do what the monarchists can never do in 2001 - generate emotional and spiritual appeal for an Australian Head of State. Pride is a very Australian characteristic - we witnessed it on Monday night when the Nation cheered Pat Rafter in the Wimbledon Final (unfortunately our Head of State was disappointed that fellow Briton Tim Henman didn't win his semi-final!). We witness it in the renewed interest in Gallipoli - we witnessed it as we staged the best Olympic Games of the modern era.

Yet there is no place for this emotional pride when it comes to our Head of State - Australians cannot feel and embrace the British Royal Family. For an obvious reason - it is not part and parcel of who we are as people.
So we have to talk to our fellow Australians about the pride they could have in our Head of State - not in the perverse sense of deification but because he or she is one of us and represents us, just as Pat Rafter did on Monday night.

Of course, once we have a republic, there will be scope to fine-tune it. If we want to make further changes, that will be possible. We've certainly got no objections to considering other constitutional issues. But that first step has got to be made. Only then will the voters be able to compare different options without having the dead weight of the monarchists loading down the scales on the No side.

I say all of this without attempting to be dogmatic about the model for a republic. At this stage in the process, I think it's essential for the ARM to be agnostic about models. All options are on the table, and we want to get everyone's input in working out the best one. So that when we end up going to a referendum, we'll have not just a model that has got popular support, but one that's going to deliver the best outcome in stable, democratic government for Australia.

We will shortly be releasing a discussion paper that will set out a number of possible republican options. This paper is the result of the myriad of views that are represented on our National, State and Territory Committees. The purpose of this paper is to generate discussion and debate in the community - it is another important step for us in revitalising this critical issue about our future as a Nation.

Predicting the future is never easy in politics, and it's especially hazardous in an election year. But one thing we can be very confident of is that the next Prime Minister, from whichever side of politics, will be a republican. Now that doesn't mean everything's straightaway going to come up roses; as I said before, policy change doesn't happen by itself. It doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to do the work. But it does mean that republicans will have an opportunity to advance the process in a way that just hasn't been possible under the present government.

Just as we're not committed to a particular republican model, the ARM isn't locked in to a view about how, in political terms, the procedure should go from here. But we're encouraged by Kim Beazley's commitment, should Labor win government, to a plebiscite on the basic question of becoming a republic. If the answer to that is No, if Australians vote to retain the monarchy then I'll be very disappointed - indeed I'll be very surprised - but at least we can save ourselves a lot of work. A No vote on a plebiscite would settle the issue in a way that the last referendum most certainly didn't.

But if, as I expect, a plebiscite shows a clear majority in favour of a republic, then we can go on to seek the maximum possible agreement on a specific model. The lesson of 1999 is that we need a broad consensus among republicans before a model is actually put to a referendum. We need agreement by some legitimate democratic process like a plebiscite - not the rigged process of the 1998 Constitutional Convention.

Once we have a model with real consensus behind it, I don't think amending the constitution will really be so difficult. It's true that record of referendum losses is pretty impressive. The vast majority, however, have been proposals to expand government powers. Most of those losses, I think, were probably well-deserved. Many of them were also sprung on the electorate suddenly, with no serious consultation beforehand - the Bill of Rights proposals of 1988 were a classic example. Without any kind of democratic process leading up to a referendum, it's easy to see why people's suspicions are going to be aroused.

Now an aversion to concentrating more power in Canberra is not a bad thing. It's all part of maintaining a system where government is subject to constitutional limits, to various checks and balances. So I don't think we should be too eager to sympathise with politicians when they complain about the lack of public trust in government; most of the time they've only got themselves to blame.

Yet even in the circumstances of 1999, with a Prime Minister who made sure the deck was firmly stacked against the republicans, the last referendum still managed to get 45% of the vote. Interestingly enough, the message I am getting from some on the Coalition side of politics is that with an unbiased information campaign, and a Prime Minister who was supportive of the republic, they think that another one-off referendum would be quite likely to succeed.

So we don't want to rule out that way of proceeding either. It might better address the fears of people who would see a Yes vote on a plebiscite as a bit of a 'blank cheque'. Certainly in an atmosphere of honest debate, when some of those who opposed the referendum last time have had time to see through the spoiling tactics of the monarchists, I don't think it will be that hard to win approval for the republic.

Unfortunately, that honest debate is not yet happening. The monarchists still refuse to engage the real issues. Since 1999, now they no longer have a single model to attack, it's very noticeable how quiet they've become. And I think that's a great pity. We're not afraid of the monarchists' arguments - if they want to come out and maintain that the organic link with Britain needs to be maintained, or that hereditary succession is a better way of picking leaders, then let's have that argument. Republicans have got nothing to fear from dealing with the issues in that way.

But instead we get things like this barren argument about whether the Queen or the Governor-General is really the head of state, an argument on legal technicalities that no-one really cares about. It's insulting to the intelligence of the public. The monarchists just don't get the symbolic importance of the change to a republic. Yet they of all people should understand that the monarchy is a symbolic institution: if it doesn't make sense as a symbol, it doesn't make sense at all.

I also think it's unfortunate that elements of the Australian media have failed to pursue the debate since the referendum, and have chosen to drop it from their agenda. It's an important responsibility of the media, and I'm thinking especially of some of our broadsheet newspapers, to lead debate on issues like this, to get a national conversation going on something a bit broader than each day's lost children and burning buildings.

As Paul Kelly said a few weeks ago in a speech to the Media Traditions Conference at the University of Central Queensland, 'we need to be resolute and unapologetic in saying that the task of our quality papers is to engage in a meeting of the minds.'

We're ready to engage. Let's bring on the debate, and let's work together to get Australia the republic that we deserve.