The model put forward has all the hallmarks of ivory-tower thinking by people who are legends in their own lunchtime. Seeking to give Australians a choice, they've devised a model where the state and Commonwealth parliaments put up candidates, and then we vote one in to be our head of state. If you go back over previous governors-general, it's hard to see who among them would have been happy to subject themselves to such a process. The reputational damage of coming last, perhaps by a long way, would be unattractive to most, if not all of them.

Surely if we were to vote for our head of state, we'd need more information than a tricked-up CV? The ugly business of personal campaigning is not attractive to anyone really, let alone those who we might wish to have as our head of state. "Vote for me" is so uncouth compared to "vote for these policies".

As a former senator, I don't see any reason why the states should be involved in the process. Right now they select their governors, and we wouldn't imagine they need have a say in who our next governor-general might be.

The ARM assumes that because the direct election lobby divided the republican vote in 1999, the only way to proceed is to make Australians vote. They describe it as us having a choice. But they key reason for becoming a republic is not because we're unhappy that we don't get to choose our governor-general. The key reason is that we want a head of state who represents all of us - not a governor-general who represents a person in another country. The time for us having a head of state who also holds that position for other countries has gone. We want our constitutional arrangements to be entirely Australian.

Constitutional change is never easy. Nor should it be. The more thoughtful consideration we give to various options, the closer we are to settling on one we can adopt.

Monarchists may well think they can sit back and let republicans argue about a suitable model. Disagreement among republicans splits the vote, and monarchists win. Unwisely, they take for granted that public opinion will not shift dramatically towards a republic until there is an agreed model. They demonstrate a careless and cavalier overconfidence. Our constitution is too important to not have any proposal for change considered by all sides of the debate. Monarchists, republicans and the indifferent alike should all be interested in what the options might be.

Public opinion can change rapidly. The same-sex marriage vote should have confirmed for conservatives that the world keeps moving on. It's the march of history. It never stops.

The last thing we want is to find public opinion moves more towards a republic and we then rush to settle on a model. That's a recipe for unhappiness all around. It's just irresponsible of us - all of us - not to keep having the debate.

Just as monarchists need to realise public opinion changes, so do republicans. No one should assume that what public opinion was in 1999 at the last referendum on this issue is what it would be today or in the future.

The model had not had a wide public airing before the campaigning began. Understandably, there were different points of view. The monarchy was held in a very different light then. Geopolitics has since put a greater focus on our region, and our independent international role. If we faced another referendum with a well-aired and -discussed model, the result could well be very different.

The No campaign in the 1999 referendum did long-lasting damage to our political system. How conservatives, and others, could bear to run a campaign saying "Don't trust the politicians" is beyond me. You can't have it both ways - "Don't trust them on this, but trust them on other matters." It was in effect a full-on assault on the credibility of our parliamentary system. I spent just over two decades in that system. Yes there were a few nut jobs, egomaniacs and people I wouldn't ask to look after $10. But the vast majority were good, decent people trying to do a good job. They don't get either the coverage or the credit they deserve.

READ MORE:

It's a simple fact of life that we need rules to coexist together happily. Somebody has to make them, and decide how to spend our taxes. We elect who will take on that task. It's a messy process and not perfect, but it's far better than any alternative. If you like the idea of authoritarian dictators, you think in a different galaxy to me. I'd trust an elected politician that we can sack over a dictator any day.

Our system has been stable with the prime minister choosing the governor-general - partly because there's enormous political cost in choosing a dud. It's worked well. I wouldn't care if we stuck with that and became a republic. Ditto some modification on the prime minister's role - the prime minister's nominee being endorsed by both houses of Parliament, for example. I wouldn't even care if the title of governor-general remained. What I want is our own head of state, someone who represents us, not someone representing someone in another place.

I've had the experience of a governor-general wanting their political view at least heard. One can only imagine what would happen if we went to an elected head of state.

Just think about a scenario where the elected head of state happens to have a very strong opinion on an issue. Knowing they have the support of the majority of voters would boost their ego in a dangerous way. There's an incredible opportunity for destabilisation by an elected head of state. Governments get enough destabilisation from the media, the opposition and from within their own ranks. They don't need it from a head of state.