Malcolm Turnbull is the Chairman of the Australian Republican Movement

Voting No on November 6 is voting for Prince Charles as our next Head of State. That's what the No case want: King Charles III and Queen Camilla. Think about it. King Charles of Australia.

The monarchists don't want to talk about the Queen, they cannot bring themselves to mention the Q word. Their campaign is the most cynical we have ever seen. In what is the biggest lie of the whole campaign they are telling voters: If you want a 'real' republic, vote for the Monarchy. If you want to elect the President, Vote No.

But voting No will no more get you an elected President than it will get you a tax cut. Voting No gets you King Charles III. Voting Yes will give us an Australian citizen as head of state instead of the Queen and it will improve our system of government. The republic model on November 6 is a significant improvement on the Queen and Governor General model we have today.

The republic will:

• Give us an Australian citizen as head of state instead of the Queen

• Reduce and make more accountable the power of the Prime Minister who will no longer have absolute power to appoint, remove and replace the Governor General. There is no doubt the Prime Minister's power today is absolute. As Bob Hawke said on television last night, when he appointed Bill Hayden as Governor-General he did not consult either the Cabinet or Caucus - it was a purely personal decision on his part.

• Give the Australian people a real say in nominating the President whereas they currently have no say in who the monarch is and no say in who the Governor General is.

• Ensure the President has the support of both sides of politics and is not a politician.

• Preserve our existing system of stable, parliamentary government.

The No case has a few members in its team who claim to be republicans, but want to Vote No. These are the so-called direct electionists, better described as Radical Republicans for the Queen. They include Ted Mack, Clem Jones and Phil Cleary. Ted and Clem were good Mayors and Phil was a good footballer and a feisty local member for Wills. We bear them no ill will. But their political judgement on this issue is seriously flawed. They should beware of Monarchists bearing directly elected republics.

Not one of the monarchists in the No campaign believes there will even be a referendum on a direct elect model in the foreseeable future, let alone that such a referendum would be carried.

Clem, Ted and Phil are being used by the monarchists to defeat a safe, workable and achievable republic. At the Convention they told us the bi-partisan appointment model would not be popular. They posed as friends of the republic, giving the rest of us some advice on political marketing. Now they are not simply predicting the republic referendum won't get up. Because the Convention did not approve their own idea of a republic, they will do their level best to ensure the rest of us have to live with King Charles III.

The republican model for November 6 is clearly the best for Australia. It was agreed to by the Constitutional Convention in which all of us had a say in electing the delegates. It secured 73 votes in favour to 57 against with 22 abstaining. Since the Convention eight delegates who abstained are now supporting a Yes vote. That means an absolute majority of Convention delegates are now saying Vote Yes.

If the No vote gets up on November 6, what's Phil Cleary going to do? I suppose he will ring up John Howard and say "John, I helped you kill off the republic referendum - how about giving the Clem Jones republic model a whirl or how about having another constitutional convention so that we can have another crack at working out a republican model?" What do you think Howard will say? Is he going to spend another $100 million so that Clem, Ted and Phil can have a go?

Just before the Constitutional Convention, Howard said he was "violently and passionately opposed" to direct election. But the Radical Republicans for the Queen, have said that if we vote No another referendum will not be long in coming. Oh, sure it will be. Who's going to sponsor it? Is it the Labor Party which is supporting the Yes vote? Is it the Liberal Party? You cannot hold a referendum unless the Parliament decides to hold one. Is John Howard going to sponsor a referendum for a republic to which he is "violently and passionately opposed."?

Lets look at the realities. The Labor Party has enormous problems with a directly elected President, because it will inevitably make it easier for the Senate to block Supply and force out an elected Government. Most Labor leaders are quite opposed to a directly elected President. Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, Kim Beazley, Bob Carr have all spoken against direct election. A direct election republic would at the very best split the Labor Party.

But it would unite the Coalition: united in a NO vote. Does anyone imagine you could win a referendum of any kind with the concerted opposition of the entire Coalition and the support of only part of the Labor Party? The only prominent Liberal who supports direct election is Peter Reith and Peter has in the last five years been a staunch monarchist, a supporter of the ARM model and now a direct electionist.

So Phil and Clem and Ted's direct election referendum will depend on:

• the Labor Party going through a lengthy internal struggle to finally agree on supporting a direct election model, notwithstanding the opposition of Labor republicans who support the bi-partisan model including such figures of real influence in that Party like Hawke, Whitlam, Keating and Carr.

• Peter Reith becoming leader of the Liberal Party,

• Peter Reith not changing his mind and finding yet another reason to oppose constitutional change, and

• Peter Reith persuading the rest of the Liberal Party, half of which supports the monarchy and the other half supports a moderate, conservative republican model to swing behind his own radical change to our system of Government.

And the craziest part of this is that Cleary and Clem Jones are appealing to Labor voters to vote No. Labor voters are being asked not simply to put their faith in Peter Reith but to put their faith in the Coalition adopting a position on the republic which, apart from Reith, has virtually no support.

The direct electionists' current political allies will not want to know them if the referendum is lost. We all know what will really happen if this referendum is lost. John Howard will say "That's it, lets get on with more important matters." Kim Beazley will realize the republic isn't going to get him back into Government. The nine grinding years it took us to get this issue up to the point of holding a referendum will be wasted and life will move on with us having blown the chance of a century.

Phil and Clem and Ted may not like this republican model. No republican model can be everyone's ideal. But this is the best model for Australia today and as a consequence it has gathered a broad array of support from every side of politics.

Importantly it will not cost anymore than the current cost of the Governor General. I repeat, after this referendum there is no additional cost by becoming a republic. We will even save a few bob on royal visits. If you are worried about what the Government does with your money consider what the direct electionists have in mind for us.

They want us to vote No in November and waste the $120 million of tax payers' dollars it has taken us to get this far. Then they want to have another Constitutional Conventions, and another referendum. There's another $100 million. And, assuming we voted Yes to their radical republic, we would have a presidential election every five years costing at least $60 million. Forever.

There are two reasons why many Australians support a directly elected President. Some of them like Ted Mack and Clem Jones want to make a radical change to our Constitution. In Ted Mack's case he wants to junk the Westminster system of parliamentary government and move to an American system. He wants a US style President with full executive powers, so no more Prime Minister. All cabinet ministers would be appointed by the President as they are in the States. The Parliament would be changed too. The Senate would be abolished and the House of Representatives would be elected by proportional representation. What a great formula for Australia: an American Presidency and an Italian Parliament!

Clem Jones' republican model is more like that of France with executive power shared between the Prime Minister and the President. As the French will tell you that is a complete mess when the President and the Prime Minister are from opposing parties as they are today.

If Australians knew what Ted Mack and Clem Jones have in mind they would not take a moment's notice of their urgings to vote NO. But even if you do want to radically change our system of Government, why would you imagine it can be done in one big bang. Political change is incremental. We support change if it is a move in the right direction. We should never, ever oppose change because it does not go far enough. We should never allow our own idea of the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

The second reason is because many Australians believe that a directly elected President would not be a politician. Nothing could be further from the truth. A directly elected President is absolutely guaranteed to be a politician. Nobody, but nobody, has the resources or organization to run a national presidential campaign apart from the big political parties.

A directly elected President will be a politician. That is an absolute certainty. Look at America. Some years ago the richest man in America, Ross Perot, ran for President. He could not beat the major political parties. Why would it be different here? Phil Cleary loves to have a go at the media moguls. The only Australian with the money to have a go at beating the political parties would be Kerry Packer. Is that what we should throw away our republic for?

Phil Cleary says he is against elitists. But he wants a republic where the President will either be a Labor politician, a Liberal politician or a billionaire. Forget about Bill Deane, forget about a scientist, forget about every idea you have ever had of what a Head of State should be.

And think about the Presidential campaigns. American razzamatazz and money. Lots of it. The No case say this is a politicians' republic. Well America has a directly elected President. George W Bush has already raised $70 million to fund his race to the White House and the election is more than a year away. There is no country in the world which elects its President where the candidates are not chosen by political parties.

If we vote Yes on November 6 our Head of State will not be a politician. We will have much more say in who gets the job and we will not have a politician. Why? Because after considering the nominations of the public, both sides of politics will have to agree. Is John Howard going to support a Labor person? Is Kim Beazley going to support a Liberal? Of course not. If we want a President like Zelman Cowen or Bill Deane this is the way to go. It will guarantee us a non-political President who will have the same powers as the Governor General.

In a directly elected presidential system the candidates will be chosen by the national executive of the Labor party and the national executive of the Liberal Party. Our republic is NOT a politician's republic.

Never in the history of Australia have so many distinguished and experienced Australians supported a political cause. Is it not remarkable that this referendum has the support of Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam, our two previous High Court Chief Justices, Sir Gerard Brennan and Sir Anthony Mason, Sir Zelman Cowen, Peter Costello, Kim Beazley, John Fahey, Natasha Stott Despoja and Amanda Vanstone not to mention every State Labor Leader and every State Liberal Leader with the exception of Richard Court.

Are all these people, with centuries of legal and political experience to be ignored when they say this referendum proposal is not simply right for Australia but it is safe.

The truth is that there is only good reason to vote NO on November 6 and that is if you want to keep the Queen of England and her successors as our Head of State. The proposition that if we become a republic our system of government will be destabilised is an insult to the common sense of Australians. It is no more than an attempt to prey on the anxieties of those in our community who are not well informed about our system of government and our constitution.

Of course there has always been a NO clique promising disaster if anything is changed. They were there to oppose the vote for women, to oppose federation, to oppose the appointment of Australian Governors General, to oppose the end of the British Parliament's power to legislate for Australia, to oppose the end of Australians having to go to the Privy Council in London for a final court of appeal. The No clique was there to oppose replacing God Save the Queen as our national anthem.

And despite what 'No' advocates may say - and despite what reasoning they use - the wash up of a No vote on November 6 will see Australia entering the second millennium with a foreign monarch who does not live among us as Head of State.

In 1999 opponents of change are trying to create smokescreens to shield the central issue in this referendum and avoid defending the role of the British Monarch as our Head of State.

'No' advocates have already warned us of $50 million presidential palaces, a new flag, new anthem, a mad dash to change the name of anything with the words 'royal' in it, a tearing down of statues - even a devaluing of our currency - if we become a republic.

Yet they know, as we do, that there will be no new Presidential palace. There will be no change to the flag; that has to be dealt with, if it ever is, at a separate plebiscite. It is an utterly separate issue; some monarchists want to change the flag, some republicans want to keep it. The only organizations which would lose the 'royal' in their names would be governmental ones, the Royal Bowling Clubs of Australia can stay royal so long as they wish. We will not leave the Commonwealth; most Commonwealth countries are republics already.

They have said the republic will make the Prime Minister all powerful. This is, as Malcolm Fraser has said, the exact reverse of the truth. Right now the Prime Minister has absolute power to appoint, remove and replace the Governor General. Under the republic the Prime Minister will need the support of the Opposition Leader and two thirds of Parliament to appoint a President.

If the Prime Minister were to remove a President he could not replace him. The senior State Governor would immediately and automatically step in as acting President until a permanent replacement was made with the support of the Opposition and two thirds of parliament. In the meantime the Prime Minister would have to account for his action to the House of Representatives and if it did not ratify his decision he would be politically finished.

So what is the net result: the Prime Minister's power is reduced and made more accountable. The political impartiality of the President is assured and we have an Australian, not a foreign monarch, as our Head of State.

So on November 6, we are seeking to harness the power of Yes. In proposing an Australian Head of State, instead of a British monarch, we do not challenge our Australian parliamentary democracy. We celebrate it and we mean to make it stronger and more relevant.

We have stood on our own two feet for 99 years. Let us take the final step to complete our independence and vote Yes for our republic. Our Head of State should be one of us! Vote Yes for our republic. Vote yes for Australia.