April 27, Newcastle

April 13, Edinburgh

March 30, Belfast

March 23, Maidstone

March 16, Truro

March 9, Nottingham

March 2, London

February 24, Leeds

February 17, London

February 10, Birmingham

February 3, Brussels

January 27, Southampton

January 20, Liverpool

January 13, London

December 16, Leeds

December 9, Manchester

December 2, Cardiff

November 25, Birmingham

November 18, Durham

November 11, Maidstone

November 4, Glasgow

October 28, Southampton

October 21, London

October 14, Sydney

October 7, Manchester

September 30, Bournemouth

September 23, London

July 15, Belfast

July 8, London

July 1, Birmingham

October 14, Sydney

Your emails from Question Time's special debate on the Australian referendum are below.

Read a full summary of the Australian referendum debate here

Your comments since the programme
What you said during the programme
What you said before the programme

Your comments after the programme:

As a Scot I can not see what the problem is! Other countries have had to shed blood to get the chance of a lifetime like this, Australians should vote yes no matter what, it will be an improvement on the present outdated system that most nations have discarded and move forward with confidence into the 21st century as Australians and not as a colonial subjects.
Alec O'Donnell, UK

Thank you Liz & Phil. You've done a good job. We're grown up now and can leave the nest. Long live the Republic but do we really have to call our Head of State a president, why not an aboriginal word meaning the same?
Martyn Noakes, Australia

I see no reason why a progressive nation like Australia should wish to maintain such an anachronistic relationship. I'm British & have nothing against Australia & Australian, but for God's sake VOTE YES!
Don Leyton, UK

In my heart I hope they remain a constitutional monarchy like us in Canada: there is something special about belonging to a greater being than the nation-state. Yet in Canada we have the very real incentive of needing to differentiate ourselves from the US, whereas Australia is the biggest fish in their particular pond, so have no differences that are further accentuated by constitutional monarchy. It's a matter of national psychology.
Kristian C. Gustafson, Canada

Australia & the UK should both adopt constitutions on the US model. As an ex-pat Englishman who lived under Thatcher and witnessed her trampling all over peoples' rights (spycatcher, the dissolution of the GLC, etc. )the checks and balances built into the US constitution are a real eye-opener. The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha could up sticks and move to Canada. They still like them there,apparently.
Pete Coster, Denver, Colorado, USA

Watching the program and reading everyone's comments it seems hotly debated but as a young Australian who now resides in Wales it has always seemed inevitable to me. The Queen has absolutely no relevance in Australia any longer, she is and always will be part of what is a cherished heritage but it's a long way off! If I can get my hands on a postal vote I'll be voting 'Yes'.
A.M.Bowring, UK/Australia

This must have been what it was like over 220+ years ago when a very similar debate was taking place in the country of my birth. At least when some wealthy and bent politician manages to mangle the constitution, the citizenry (former "subjects,") can look in their own back yard for the answers to where it all went wrong! It's all part of growing up and accepting our responsibilities as adults! I say, "More power to you, Australia!"
Stephen, San Antonio, Texas, USA

I feel most strongly that a country that has the guts to produce the likes of Neighbours, Home and Away and of course PRISONER! Cell block H deserves all the independance they can get. As far as possible away from me.
Mike Mitchelmore, UK

Surely, no one can seriously suggest that in a Parliamentary Democracy that a Monarchy has any relevance. Democracy must be seen to be done, as with justice, and there is no justice in power and status by birth. Australians should use their opportunity while they have it and vote for a Republic.
Andy Coutts, UK

Derek Anderson's, shocking Eurocentric view, of "iconoclasts who have no good reason for change and no realisation of what [is] proposed", not only reveals some disturbing colonial mindset, but also a blatant and ignorant disregard of Australians being able to determine their own future. The manner Derek proposed his views, gives insult to the whole of Australian society and nation, with not only his colonial "master" undertone, but a misunderstanding that becoming a republic is a symbolic action that represents Austalia as what it truly is, a independent leader in the global community.
David Goncalves, Fremantle, Western Australia

What a beautiful country Australia is! And what a terrible mean mood it is that has gripped the minds of some Australian people who are so vehement in their support of becoming a republic. It strikes me that these people are simply iconoclasts who have no good reason for change and no realisation of what the proposed constitutional change will involve. I think that all good, right-thinking Australians will stick with a system they know and not go for one just because it exists. Becoming a Republic will solve no problems!
Derek Anderson, UK

Most referendums are defeated first time round because the majority of people are fundamentally cautious. Australia's international reputation was harmed more by the ludicrous internet censorship bill than by having a foreign national as our head of state. What will change mean for the average Bruce and Sheila? Almost nothing, some people who's sense of worth is tied up in political/monarchical matters will feel good or bad, most of us won't really care one way or another.
Lyndon Samson, Australian ex-pat in London

Isn't it a fact that if there were no heirs to the British Throne, then the House of Lords would elect the next Monarch? If so, then the Australian proposed method to elect their President would be exactly the same.
Keith Wren, UK

Anglo-Saxon Australia was settled so the motherland could get rid of problem children. The motherland has sacrificed Australian soldiers. The motherland has tested weapons on native Australians on Australian soil. We have the opportunity to put behind us the flawed UK system perpetuated by class and find our own way. Why do we want to be tethered to a country that is no GREAT Britain?
Martyn, Australia

To be honest I was quite surprised that this issue is receiving so much debate. I follow an old saying - that of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Personally, I am fed up with everyone trying to change their heritage for no good reason. Abandoning the House of Lords in the UK will serve no purpose as will abandoning Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as head of state in Australia. Stop trying to copy the Yanks!
Nigel Batty-Smith, England

As a "POM" who has spent most of my adult life in Australia's sphere of influence, I think one point that was missed in tonight's programme was the refreshing distance between our constitutional monarchy and populist politics: the Queen never had to compromise herself for the popular vote. Neither has she ever developed the xenophobia, nor the arrogance, that besets so many of our politicians.
Paul Unwin, Australia

I think the Australian people should ask themselves what they will gain by changing the current situation. Is their choice being guided by the same sort of jingoistic clap-trap as the Euro? Are the media and the more vocal politicians expressing the opinions of the populace, or just making noises that scores them points?
Paul Robinson, UK

Return to the top of the page

Your comments during the programme:

I think the program brought up many valid arguments but they all boil down too the fact that it's the people's choice. To me, the simple answer to this is getting the people to vote on more than a strait YES/NO question. A lot of people will vote NO because they don't like the new model, yet may still think that changes need to be made. I think I will vote YES just for a change yet I don't think that this is where the change should stop...
Quentin Wake, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia

Bob Hawkes specious argument that effectively states that Australians MUST vote yes, even though the system is flawed "but can evolve" is the typical weasel words of the politician scenting a whiff of power. If you REALLY want a republic, then put in that "evolved" system now. You are conning the public and worse, foisting a President on the people that is little more than a prime ministerial puppet. Think very carefully before you vote, you may be unfortunate enough to get what you think you wish for and burn your bridges to boot.
Jeremy Zeid, UK

To make the "non-Anglo-Saxons do not identify with the monarchy" argument in favour of a republic is to shamelessly play the race card and only begs the question of why their opinions are more valuable than those who do identify with it. The only sensible question is whether a president appointed by politicians and dismissed at will by the Prime Minister is preferable to a constitutional monarchy in terms of the political stability it confers and the money it costs to run. On both counts the constitutional monarchy wins. In fact many of the most progressive countries - the countries to which so many are attracted to make new lives in relative stability, security and prosperity - all seem to be constitutional monarchies: Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, the UK, New Zealand and... Australia.
Adam Tebble, Brisbane, Australia / UK

Why can't the Australians vote first, for or against a Republic, then secondly, on the model they prefer?
Bob Pearson, UK

As a recent visitor to the UK I asked a few friends and some locals asked me about the idea of Australia becoming a republic. The majority of English views were to support the idea of Australia seeking a new beginning to coincide with the centenary of federation, 2001. If this model is not the one you prefer you need to have the belief that it's one step at a time. After all, if you can't reach your goal today do you sit back and do nothing or do you begin on the arduous trek to allow the goal to become an easier target?
Cheryl Taggart, Australia

Maybe I am just being a little sensitive about being English, but whenever the question arises of independence or autonomy, the English are painted as the bad guys. It's as if all the ills of the world are due to the English in Westminster. Has it ever occurred to anyone to ask the British how they feel about this matter?
Paul Kolkowski, UK

Why aren't members of the royal family asked to be on Question Time so that they can justify their own position?
Neil Cannicott, Australia

I cannot believe any sane British Citizen could say, "let the Aussies get on with it". I like Australian people and fear they are falling into a big hole by accepting this new proposal. I am praying that on the morning of November the 7th that I can be assured of no more "offers" like this one.
Sam Latham, Bournemouth, England

Those who favour a Republic have brought it down to one simple question. That is, do you want an Australian Head of State? The media has been flooded with advertising which focuses on this one issue. This is not the question to be asked or answered. Australians should not be hoodwinked into believing that it comes down to this, yet Republicans have 'snowed' our younger people into believing this. I want to know what is going to change in our constitution? This is more important to me than anything else. Once I am comfortable with any proposed changes to the constitution, including any single WORD which may affect a sentence's meaning, then and ONLY then will I vote yes for Australia to become a Republic. At this stage I'll vote NO. Next time may be different. Fellow Australians, don't be apathetic. Ask the right questions and vote with knowledge, not emotion.
Greg Buchanan, Australia

People are debating about whether they should keep the monarchy or adopt a poorly designed republic, perhaps they should debate why they haven't been given the option of a real republic with an elected head.
Tony Kelly, UK

It is unbelievable that while the British hotly debate entry into Europe, complaining that they don't want "Europe" dictating policy in Britain, they criticise the Australians for no longer wanting Britain to control our country! Is this irony? Or is it just hypocrisy?
Kate Alley, Australia

The direct-electionists may have popular support, but their model fails under scrutiny. The only people that would have the money to stand for election for the presidency would be backed by a political party, or be a Packer or a Murdoch. Whichever is the outcome, it's the opposite of what the direct-electionists want to achieve. The model being put forward at the referendum will give us the best possible person to be president.
Ari Sharp, Melbourne, Australia

The same question that is being asked in Australia must be asked in Britain. The monarchy is outdated and unwanted. We are also intelligent enough to elect our own head of state.
Neil Curno, UK

If disgraceful former PMs such as Bob Hawke advocate such a change, I'll be voting NO for the sake of my family. Any resemblance to an American system would devalue our nation.
Mick, Australia

Let the Aussies get on with it. If it goes wrong - tough. They can then see what it's like to go through difficult times without the secure blanket of the British monarchy. Also let us win the cricket once in a while.
Phil Brewer, UK

The most ridiculous and frustrating aspect of the monarchist case is their failure to decide who is the 'real' Head of State, the Queen or the Governor General? I'll be voting YES because the 'parliamentary appointment' model ensures a partisan politician cannot become president. This model is considerably more democratic than the existing, offensive anachronism.
Adrian Leopardi, Sydney, Australia

As the Queen in a figurehead only, and has no impact on Australian constitutional politics, I can see no reason for Australia becoming a republic. I have to say that this strikes me as a bit of Brit-bashing that has become so popular these days. All that being said however Australia is a constitution and it is for the Australian people to decide.
Simon Hornby, UK / US

This issue is for the Australian people, and them alone to decide. Whatever the decision, the historic, social, sporting, and cultural links between Britain and Australia will remain as strong as ever.
Roger, UK

I am an Australian, living and working in the UK long-term. Will a republican Australia allow Australians to freely live and work in the UK? What are the effects on the Commonwealth agreement?
Clair Lamb, UK / Australia

As a British citizen, perhaps ignorant of the current monarchy debate, why is it that Australian nationals are only allowed into the UK on a maximum of a two-year working visa? If the Queen is the head of their state, as she is ours, why are they not allowed in here for as long as they want?
Steven Maclaurin, UK / Scotland

We give you the monarchy. You give us Neighbours (and Home and Away)! Fair deal!!!!
Richard Whale, UK

Perhaps Australians have forgotten that the majority of their ancestors were sent there as convicts for committing heinous crimes against the crown! Indeed, the only true Australians are aboriginal and are therefore not eligible to be head of state, and indeed may not wish to be. It seems apparent that the proposition for change is advocated by politicians who merely desire more power in world affairs when they are quite simply not qualified to do so!
Andreas Kyrris, UK

Let the people go! I hope that one day all nations can exist without time-worn figureheads.
Brendan Bird, UK

The Governor-General can dissolve parliament (re Kerr/Whitlam) & it appears that the new president will still have this power. If the president is a political appointment then if the opposition party comes to power, the president can dissolve parliament, especially if the majority is small.
Roger Reeve, UK / Australia

It is all well and good debating whether Australia should become a Republic, but perhaps the most important thing that Australia should be facing politically are the rights of the Aborigines. If the YES campaign wins, the suffering will not stop. Sort out this important problem rather than this completely artificial debate!!
Nick Short, UK

The Queen as a head of state does nothing of worth for us here in the United Kingdom. I cannot see that she does anything of value for the Australian People. I look forward to the day when Scotland will be a republic sitting apart from this ridiculous family.
Ian Lowe, UK

A Republic will make Australia go downhill. One of the reasons why Australia is a great country is because simply, Britain is a great country.
John Alsarraf, Great Britain

I totally agree that its wrong for our Queen to be the head of state in Australia. I know for a fact if the rolls were reversed the people of the United Kingdom would not like to have someone who lived on the other side of the world as their head of State.
Peter Bentley, UK

It would be nice if the people of the United Kingdom could have a vote if we want a monarchy! Why should someone be head of state by right of birth. Good luck to the Australians.
Frank Goodwill, UK

I'm in the UK and would like the thought that our taxes would be saved from being spent on trips to Australia by HRH Liz II!! We are yet to be citizens in our own nation. HRH is surely just a tourist attraction here these days?
Jo Ryan, UK

If the people of Australia want to vote yes, in a referendum which has a loaded question, will there be another one when it all goes horribly wrong for them.
Grant Floyd, UK

How do the panel feel about the fact that British Troops have bee commissioned to serve alongside Australian troops in East Timor? Would they like them to abandon the Aussies as you abandon your Queen.
Richard Iredale, UK

Why not let the people directly elect the Governor-General?
Mike Hudgell, UK

Having just heard the comment about Republicanism being the purest form of democracy, will Australia be looking to hand over governmental control to the Aboriginal people, having subjugated them for the past 200 plus years? If true democracy is being sought, then surely it is time that governmental control of Australia is handed over to its native peoples?
Clive Horton, UK

Return to the top of the page

Your comments before the programme:

I believe that it is time that both Canada and Australia "grew up" and cut the apron strings to the Mother country. Both countries were once composed of mainly white Anglo Saxon settlers. Now, as we edge towards the new millennium, immigrants and residents are from countries who have few or no historical ties to Britain and the Queen. Britain has forged new alliances, such as the EU. It is time that Commonwealth countries looked ahead, rather than back.
Sandra Duncan, Britain / Nova Scotia, Canada

Not only is it time for Australians to be citizens rather than subjects, but for us in the so-called 'United Kingdom' also.
Aldo Mussi, UK

The Royal Family are an embarrassment to Britain let alone Australia. A dynamic country like Australia should rid themselves of class structures and reward meritocracy. It is impossible to involve citizens in all aspects of their country's life while positions of power and privilege are reserved for people whose talent has been an accident of birth. Reward achievement not hereditary anomaly.
Allan McKeown, UK

A decision that only the Australian public can make - has nothing to do with us in the UK - as it will have zero effect on anybody here.
Tim Stonehouse, UK

One of the primary difficulties with this referendum is how the question itself has been framed. My impression is that it has been rigged to make the most of the divisions in the Republican camp by basing it on one of the proposed models and not a simple "Do you want a Republic - Yes or No?" This would give a fairer result and still allow the non-Republicans the opportunity to shape any changes in the event of a 'Yes' vote. The wrangling over the wording of the question and the resultant arguments on models and methods of electing a head of state is turning many Aussies off and clouding the real issue. We are not a particularly enthusiastic electorate and politicians have a poor image. This is not helping.
Stephen Brooke, Australia

Australia should abandon 18th century ideas and move into the 21st century with a truly democratic republican system. It is silly to have someone else's queen as your head of state. Monarchy has been relegated to the dustbin of history, and it's time for the stragglers to catch up with the rest of the world.
David Easley, UK

Australia does not need to become a republic-the only real reason seems to be that of pleasing the likes of Indonesia and China. There might have been some logic to this before the Asian economic collapse, but those social and economic conditions are history now. The King or Queen might not be the perfect head of state, but this has not profoundly harmed the nearby Asian nations that have royalty. I expect that in the long run, when the UK abandons the Royal system, Canada, Oz and NZ will abandon the King or Queen as head of state. There are more important problems to worry about, like keeping world population in check or plant or animal bio invasions ruining the world economy.
M Hack, Canada

Return to the top of the page

Question Time Home | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage

Link to BBC Homepage