I agree entirely . I also have reservations regarding the ARM proposed method of selecting a head of state . However , it is presumably seen as a compromise which might attract more voters who are not convinced republicans . In 1999 , monarchists opposed the proposal to have a parliamentary appointment , saying that we should not trust politicians and we should not have a direct election of a head of state because that would lead to a pop star or similar being elected .

instead , we retain a system under which only the Prime Minister can nominate a person to the British monarch for Governor General , whom the monarch is conventionally obliged to appoint , though , if the Constitution is read literally , the monarch appoints in his absolute discretion .

Apart from the question of changing the Constitution , the immediate actions taken to rename public places and buildings after the deceased
and allegedly mourned monarch , without any public consulation , are reminiscient of a coconut colony .

Jaylex

Yep..Australia, the Republic of Bananas”, sounds appropriate: Or maybe the “Republic of Coconut Heaven “…mmm. The “Republic of Native Title”, led by the auspicious right Honourable Eddy O’Beid, from his office in Long Bay, or Hawks Nest, take your pick.

The “Republic of Carbon Tax”, they’ll be no Republic of Carbon Tax on my shift..Gillard.
Or, the “Republic of US outpost” , the “Republic of UN Meddling”, or the “Republic of Chinese Xenophobia”…Any port in a storm!, mmm, maybe the “ Republic of Any Port in a Storm”.

The Republic of Coles”…down down down we go, round and round we go, love’n that spin that we’re in, that old black magic called “Republic”…or better say, White Magic?

Dan

“Republic of Caligula Joe”…I vote for that one! That’s the one…bring on another war boys!

Dan.

This bloke immediately reveals himself as a 'Guardianista'. The Guardian tells him Charles 111 is "manifestly unsuitable" and he falls for it. He also fell for the belief that once the Queen went, Australians would be slobbering for a republic; the opposite has occurred.

The cult of the republic is the cult of mediocrity. Republicans want to dismantle a time-tested arrangement that works well and keeps us part of an international family of like-minded nations and to replace it with extended rule by our not spectacularly gifted politicians, and with a figurehead president who is either one of themselves or the kind of person who gets chosen as Australian of the Year.

As for this Australian head of state business: what is an Australian in these days or rampant and stupid multiculturalism. We need the Monarchy to retain any semblance of unity, just as the UK does.

It is not the Monarch, but the Monarchy, that is important.

The stability of the crown outstrips any alternative. Charles 111 has all his life been schooled in the Constitution responsibilities and he accepted the crown without any political campaigning.

Look who is calling for a Republic, primarily the Greens and immigrants who will not recognize a Christian institution. Site any non-Christian Republic that does not have oppressive laws denying freedom of ideas to be expressed.

The thing is about Charles is that he hasn't upset anyone. Gawd help us if insufferable ABC Q&A types end up being President or the leader of the indigenous parliament. Then we'll be lectured every week on our failings while they fly around in VIP jets dispensing wisdom. With Charles and Camilla it will be once in a blue moon to open a bridge or some such.

I think the Auditor General should work out how much the present vice regal system costs. Then legislation should be enacted to guarantee the presidential system is cheaper. If not stick with Charles.